Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Rail Services (North-West)

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in improving rail services to the north-west.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): British Rail is planning to upgrade Intercity west coast main line services, involving investment of some £750 million in new rolling stock, signalling and track improvements. British Rail recently invited tenders for the new trains.
Regional railways' north transpennine express services from Newcastle to Liverpool have already benefited from the introduction of the latest class 158 diesel units. They were brought into the service in January this year.

Mr. Butler: What provisions will be made for direct passenger services between the north-west and the channel, given that the regional sets that British Rail was meant to produce will not be ready on time? Is there any news about the location of the freight terminals in the north-west, a decision that has been long awaited?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will know that there are design problems with the trains for daytime through services. It is not a resource constraint on the Government but a problem with the manufacturers designing trains that will be able to run on the lines north of London where there is overhead electricity and a need to split the longer TGV trains witch will serve the capitals. I very much hope that those services will be in place as soon as possible. In the interim between the opening of the tunnel and those trains running, we expect that British Rail will run services into Waterloo from the north-west so that passengers can interconnect quickly. As for night services, there is no reason to believe that they will be delayed on the west coast main line.
For freight services, British Rail intends to operate two terminals, one in Liverpool and one in Manchester. I hope that before too long British Rail will have made the final decisions about the precise locations.

Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister agree that an overnight sleeper service is desirable from the channel tunnel to the north-west if for no other reason than that the tourism industry in the north-west and in Scotland requires such a service?

Mr. Freeman: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important. If he has not seen the designs of British Rail and of some of the potential suppliers of those services, perhaps he might avail himself of an opportunity to do so and comment on the quality of service that will be available on sleepers and on overnight services from Paris and Brussels, which will run non-stop through London and up the west coast main line.

Mr. Sumberg: Will those improvements in the rail service to the north-west, which I welcome, lead to an abandonment by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) of the proposed Greater Manchester northern and western relief road? Will the Minister have a word with him to tell him that the rail service is improving and that therefore he need not proceed with the plan, which is much resented and disapproved of by my constituents?

Mr. Freeman: I shall certainly convey my hon. Friend's sentiments to my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, but I am bound to say that road investment in the north-west—especially in the Greater Manchester conurbation—has been significant in recent years, although there is a great deal further to go. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic will deal with the specific point that my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Snape: May I return the Minister to the question of rail services and especially to rail safety in the north-west? Is he aware that three of the most senior operating managers on the London Midland region have been removed from their jobs at a moment's notice because they were courageous enough to speak out about the impact on safety of present financial policies? Does he accept that in the event of a serious accident on British Rail arising from those policies, we shall hold the Secretary of State and his fellow Ministers responsible?

Mr. Freeman: Safety is the pre-eminent concern of not only British Rail, but the Department of Transport. I am aware of the specifics of the case of the three individuals who have been named. They are not the only guardians of the quality of safety on British Rail. Responsibility rests primarily with the chairman and with the board of British Rail. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of rail safety not only in terms of resource expenditure, but in ensuring that standards on existing equipment are maintained.

Speed Limits

Sir David Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to limit the speed of vehicles on leaving motorways.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): It is the responsibility of every motorist to drive safely and that includes observing the speed limit. We are monitoring the use of experimental yellow bar markings on slip roads to make drivers more aware of their speed.

Sir David Mitchell: Will the Department erect repeater 70 mph speed limit signs on the A303 west of the M3? Is my hon. Friend aware of the number of deaths, injuries and other accidents that have occurred on that section of road, including a nine-car pile-up into the back of a farm tractor at the weekend?

Mr. Chope: I am well aware of the excessive speed at which many motorists travel on that stretch of road and of the number of accidents that have been occasioned. I know that the police take the issue of enforcement seriously. Earlier this month, they booked 59 drivers on that stretch of road; the average speed at which they were travelling was 94 mph. I do not think that the speeding is so much inadvertent as deliberate and that is why I am sceptical about the idea of putting up repeater 70 mph limit signs. I have asked the Transport and Road Research Laboratory to look at that section of road to see what can be done to increase compliance with the speed limit. Largely as a result of the pressure from my hon. Friend, we have in the roads programme a major improvement to the part of the road between Bullington Cross and Andover, where many of the serious accidents have occurred. I hope that we shall be able to implement that soon.

Fishing Vessel Losses

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many United Kingdom registered fishing vessels have been lost in each of the past four years; and what was the number of fishermen drowned in such vessel losses.

The Minister for Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): Figures for 1990 are not yet available. For the years 1986 to 1989 inclusive, the numbers of United Kingdom fishing vessels lost were 19, 14, 22 and 22. The numbers of related deaths of fishermen were 11, four, 18 and 16.

Dr. Godman: Since I tabled the question, the Portsmouth trawler Wilhelmina has been lost, with its six-man crew, as the Minister will know. He and his officials need to do far more to enhance the safety of fishermen. When will he acknowledge the need for the provision of immersion suits on every fishing vessel over 10 m long? The carriage of such suits would save the lives of some fishermen. When will the Minister come to terms with that need?

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman will know that an investigation is continuing into the Wilhelmina. It is always sad and unfortunate to have to record the loss of a fishing vessel. Over the past 20 years, the number of losses each year has not changed very much, although in each case it is a particular tragedy. I will look at the question of immersion suits.

Mr. David Martin: My hon. Friend will recall that I raised with him last week the loss of the Wilhelmina J, a Portsmouth vessel, over Easter. There was a memorial service last week in Portsmouth, where the incident was taken very seriously. We all have sympathy for the relatives of the six people who lost their lives on board that vessel. My hon. Friend has assured me that an inquiry is proceeding as fast as it can and I do not wish to anticipate its findings. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Zulfikar, the Cypriot ship involved, was stopped off Lisbon, earlier than it was at first thought possible to do as it sailed to Egypt, and that evidence will be gathered as soon as possible? Perhaps the lessons that can be learnt are——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have not the lessons now, but the question to the Minister, please.

Mr. Martin: Perhaps the lessons once the inquiry has reported could be that technological devices can be improved. Should not the application of radar transponder devices and collision avoidance for smaller vessels also be covered by legislation?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The whole House shares in the sympathy for those involved in the tragic accident of the Wilhelmina. It is always tragic when fishing vessels go down because they are usually from small communities and the effect on such communities is substantial.
I confirm that the inquiry is taking place and that the inspectors have already interviewed the master of the ship involved. The application of transponders will be brought to the attention of the inspector and he will probably address it when he makes his recommendation. I hope that we shall have an interim report in the next few days. When we shall be able to publish any of it remains to be seen.

Mrs. Ray Michie: The Minister will recall the sinking of the fishing vessel Antares, which sailed from Carradale in my constituency, in which four of the crew were lost. Does he agree that in view of the special circumstances and evidence surrounding that tragedy, the Ministry of Defence should take responsibility for funding representation for the families at the forthcoming fatal accident inquiry? If the Ministry of Defence continues to refuse to do so, will the Department of Transport consider helping those families, who have suffered a great deal already?

Mr. McLoughlin: The inquiry into the loss of the Antares is in progress. The points that the hon. Lady makes are first and foremost for the Ministry of Defence, but I shall bear in mind her comments and consider possible solutions.

Ms. Walley: Does the Minister agree that we need a complete overhaul of safety in all aspects of shipping? In respect of the incident about which we have just heard, does he agree that the failure of the Department of Transport and the Ministry of Defence to get together and resolve the matter is matched by the failure to approve and test the specification for the pinger devices which could do so much to improve safety when submarines are around? Was not that research interrupted because of the Gulf war and when will the Minister reach agreement with the Ministry of Defence so that our fishermen can fish in safety?

Mr. McLoughlin: I am fed up with the Opposition attempting to make party political points on what is a serious matter. If we are to start making party political points—I have tried to avoid doing so—we can look back and see that total losses were 37 in 1975, 35 in 1976, 37 in 1977, 38 in 1978 and 42 in 1979. Those were far greater losses than take place now. How dare the Opposition make cheap party political points?

British Rail Pay

Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether, in the British Rail pay round, consideration has been given to a share participation scheme; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I regret that a share participation scheme would


not be possible for British Rail while it remains a nationalised industry, but this will become an attractive option once British Rail is in the private sector.

Mr. Gregory: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if it were possible for British Rail to be denationalised, the employees could benefit from a share option scheme? Indeed, those parts of British Rail that have been denationalised already benefit from such schemes. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm, for example, that at British Rail Engineering Ltd. in York, people with the same qualifications as employees of British Rail are offered a pay differential of between 23 and 36 per cent? Does not that show the way forward for British Rail, as opposed to the old-fashioned trade union policies adopted by the trade union barons?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. Indeed, in 1990 BREL made a free allocation to employees of some of the 20 per cent. of shares bought by managers. Clearly, it is part of any privatisation to increase the opportunities available to employees. In previous privatisations employees have always come forward enthusiastically. That is one of the main advantages of introducing an industry to the new environment of the private sector.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. David—Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Mr. Skinner: That is my brother; he is younger than me.

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He slipped my memory for a moment!

Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that the employees of British Rail are not interested in share participation schemes? They are not interested in the offer that has been made by British Rail for their wages. They are not interested in what the Tories have to offer in respect of privatisation. They want the same kind of treatment as is being handed out in wages and conditions to the head of British Rail, who is picking up more than £200,000, and the other top directors who pocketed a 22·7 per cent increase last year. The Government should give the employees that treatment.

Mr. Rifkind: The chairman of British Rail is a man of exceptional ability. If we are to expect British Rail to achieve the progress that has been made in many other industries, it is crucial to ensure that the person who is attracted to take over responsibility for the industry is paid a salary commensurate with such ability. The current pay negotiations are primarily a matter for British Rail and I hope that British Rail employees will take into account the fact that inflation is now falling rapidly. That is increasingly recognised throughout industry as well as in the public sector.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Geralld Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the channel tunnel rail link.

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to make an announcement on the route for the channel tunnel high-speed link.

Mr. Rifkind: I expect to receive British Rail's proposals for the channel tunnel rail link soon and will want to

discuss them with Sir Bob Reid. The Government will reach their conclusions on the project as speedily as possible, but it is too early to say when announcements may be made.

Mr. Bowden: In his discussions with Sir Bob Reid, will my right hon. and learned Friend impress upon him the benefits which will come from a route that is aligned on a junction at Stratford, as that will offer not only direct through trains from Stratford through King's Cross to the west country, but the opportunity for through trains, freight and passenger, to the whole of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I am certainly aware of the advantages that it is often suggested the Stratford connection would bring. I certainly expect British Rail fully to have considered that option with the other options in its current survey.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Chris Smith.

Mr. Tony Banks: No, Mr. Speaker. I tabled Question 7, which was linked with this one.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it should be Mr. Anthony Banks first.

Mr. Banks: Thank you, Sir. You obviously had a good weekend.
It would be more helpful if the Secretary of State could give us a more precise date instead of "soon" for receiving British Rail's decisions. As he will know, all of London is waiting for this decision, not least his colleagues who have marginal constituencies and who have more than a passing interest in the line that will come through London. Will the Secretary of State bear it in mind that there are strategic implications and that the whole future prosperity and economic welfare of the east end is bound up in his decision? Will he give an undertaking to the House that he will consider the decision in terms of its strategic significance and importance?

Mr. Rifkind: Some time ago British Rail made it clear that it expected to make its recommendations to the Government this month. That may still be the case, but, obviously, that is a matter for British Rail. I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's points in the latter part of his question. Indeed, I would go further and say that British Rail's recommendations and the Government's decision on the high-speed link have potential national significance. It has implications not only for London and the south-east, but for the country as a whole. Therefore, I assure the hon. Gentleman that not only British Rail but the Government will address these matters with all the seriousness that they deserve.

Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many hundreds of people and many institutions and firms are awaiting anxiously the announcement of the final route? When he considers the route will he bear in mind the fact that we have been waiting for many, many months? Will he confirm that when he has made his decision on the route it will be reported to the House in the first instance and will not be announced during the summer recess?

Mr. Rifkind: I have indicated the seriousness with which I view these matters and, clearly, it is important not only to reach a decision but to do so as expeditiously as possible. I cannot anticipate when a conclusion will be


possible, but I certainly appreciate the desirability of the House's being given an opportunity fully to consider any conclusion that the Government may reach in due course.

Mr. Rees: To follow the Secretary of State's comment about national implications—this is a matter for us in Leeds, Yorkshire and the north in general—is not one of the problems to do with signalling arrangements? At the weekend I was informed of a serious problem arising from cheap, shoddy, signalling arrangements in Leeds. Will the Secretary of State consider that carefully? It is no good talking about a high-speed link, if the existing basic signalling is not up to standard.

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that signalling is crucial to the smooth and acceptable operation of a railway service and I shall be happy to consider his points. I again emphasise the importance of the channel tunnel to areas north of London as well as to the south-east. Many would convincingly argue that the benefits of rail freight are all the more substantial the further north one goes, because of the longer journeys involved.

Mr. Wolfson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that proper consideration needs to be given to the strategic implications of a high-speed link to the channel tunnel? Does he agree that good rail links, comparable with those of the TGV in France, are generators of economic growth and prosperity? Will he give due weight to that in his deliberations?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I agree that good rail links are highly desirable. The public debate on these matters is somewhat different in north-west France, where there is great enthusiasm for any such proposed rail connections, from that in the south-east of England, which has a quite different economy and much more congestion because of the burden of population and where such matters are conducted differently. However, the basic principle remains the same; rail links are crucial to the benefits of the channel tunnel on both sides of the channel.

Mr. Chris Smith: When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of British Rail will he make two essential points to him? First, it is important to ensure that there are fast and direct links from the channel tunnel to all parts of the country, not just to London. Secondly, in order to achieve that, it is not necessary to place an intolerable burden of extra congestion on King's Cross and its immediate area. Will he ensure that British Rail looks seriously and carefully at alternatives to King's Cross and does not dismiss them out of hand?

Mr. Rifkind: I expect the survey being undertaken by British Rail to consider the points that the hon. Gentleman has made. The implications for King's Cross and the alternative option of Stratford have been suggested by a number of quarters. British Rail's conclusions will carry additional weight if it can be seen to have considered all options fairly, objectively and responsibly.

Sir Robert McCrindle: Whereas my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Kent and south-east London have varying degrees of apprehension about the fast link, is not it at least as important to remember that the people of east London, north London and Essex, by and large,

support the Stratford option? Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear that in mind in his consideration of the matter?

Mr. Rifkind: The points made today by my hon. Friend and by other hon. Members will emphasise to British Rail, if it needed reminding, that the House and the country expect that the study should look at all the options in a credible and objective fashion if British Rail's conclusions are to command the level of national support for which it hopes?

Mr. Prescott: Does the Secretary of State accept that this is not a matter entirely for British Rail and that the Government have the overriding responsibility to see that there is a high-speed rail link from the tunnel not only to London but to areas beyond—the midlands, the north, Wales and Scotland? When he makes his decision, on receiving the report from British Rail, will he consider making a statement before the summer recess, or will his judgment be based on electoral considerations?

Mr. Rifkind: I must await British Rail's recommendations. On the routes north of London, I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that, thanks to Government approval and support for British Rail, the electrification of the east coast line will be completed in the very near future. That will make a dramatic difference to rail services on the east coast. It will enable British Rail to continue to say that, apart from the networks of France and Japan, its railway network, especially inter-city, is one of the fastest in the world. That requires on-going investment of the sort that I have outlined and it is right to emphasise that British Rail today has one of the fastest rail networks in the world, other than those in France and Japan.

Transport Infrastructure (South Cumbria)

Mr. Franks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the transport infrastructure in south Cumbria.

Mr. McLoughlin: The current road programme for south Cumbria includes major improvements costing some £50 million. These proposals represent a very substantial investment and should greatly improve the trunk road network in south Cumbria.
I understand that British Rail is currently looking closely at options for improving the rail service between Preston and Barrow.

Mr. Franks: My hon. Friend will be aware that the south-west corner of Cumbria, particularly the town of Barrow, is probably one of the least accessible parts of the country. In view of the area's need to broaden its economic base following cuts in defence expenditure, will my hon. Friend give urgent priority to improving the local infrastructure, and particularly to an early commencement of a bypass at Dalton-in-Furness on the A590?

Mr. McLoughlin: I understand my hon. Friend's point and what he said about the A590. Those matters are currently being considered by my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic and I hope that we shall soon be able to help my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks).

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that west Cumbria would be greatly assisted by rapid improvements


to the west coast line, which will require a certain amount of investment over the next five years? Will he undertake to discuss with the chairman of British Rail how the state can help to improve those services?

Mr. McLoughlin: We are always willing to consider, with the chairman of British Rail, any proposals or investment programmes that British Rail wishes to pursue.

Mr. Jopling: Is my hon. Friend aware that, if the most serious and urgent problems of Barrow and the surrounding area are to be dealt with, as they must be, Ministers must apply their minds and their time to making special efforts to ensure that road communications are improved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) said, including the Lindale to Newby bridge stretch of road and the railway line to Barrow, where connections with the main line are haphazard, to say the least?

Mr. McLoughlin: I understand my right hon. Friend's concern. As I said in my original answer, British Rail is currently considering the matter.

A69

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for improving the A69 road between Carlisle and Hexham.

Mr. Chope: We are improving the A69. I had the pleasure of opening the A69 Brampton bypass on Thursday. The preferred route for a bypass of Haltwhistle was announced on 10 December last year and we are now proceeding towards publication of the statutory orders. Other recent improvements include the provision of climbing lanes, and more will be done as required.

Mr. Martlew: Was not a political decision taken by the Minister last year to transfer responsibility from the Manchester regional office of the Department of Transport to Newcastle, and have not the consequences of that decision, which was taken without provision for extra manpower at Newcastle, been longer delays in projects to improve the A69, the Dalton bypass in the south of Cumbria and, most important to my constituents and to me, the proposed north-west bypass at Carlisle?

Mr. Chope: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The transfer was made to put more resources into the major programme of road infrastructure and investment in Cumbria, amounting to £186 million. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) which of the schemes in that £186 million programme in Cumbria would be cut in the event of there being a Labour Government. I am writing to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East today to ask which of the 53 schemes that we are announcing for the coming financial year would be cut in the event of his being responsible for these matters.

Mr. Amos: Does my hon. Friend agree that the north-east has been treated fairly with regard to new road construction. If my hon. Friend considers the characteristics of and the accident record for the various types of vehicles which use the A69, especially heavy lorries and caravans, I am sure that he will agree that that stretch of road needs to be dualled urgently.

Mr. Chope: I understand my hon. Friend's point. That is one reason why I spent a lot of time last Thursday considering the A69 to see what possible further improvements could be added to the programme, in addition to the £186 million already in it.

Rail Services

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to introduce legislation to provide for compensation for rail users on lines such as the Chelmsford-Liverpool Street line who suffer from poor quality of service.

Mr. Freeman: Not at present, but the best way to improve quality of service is by investment in new rolling stock and infrastructure. That has happened for example on the Northampton route and will happen, in May, for the Chiltern route.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In the light of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Conservative party central council in Southport, can my hon. Friend the Minister say how the possibility of a citizens' charter would benefit commuters on the Chelmsford-Liverpool Street line and other lines in the British Rail network?

Mr. Freeman: I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's speech is relevant to British Rail in that it requires quality targets to be set and communicated to customers, and for there to be some form of redress where appropriate. It is certainly appropriate to British Rail, particularly where there are monopolies—one thinks, for instance, of Network SouthEast. British Rail is already moving towards setting fare increases directly related to the achievement of quality on individual lines—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) laughs, but he will know that there is a distinction between the service from Southend to Liverpool Street—where a real fare increase followed an improvement in the quality of service—and the service from Southend and Fenchurch Street, where there has been no real fare increase because there has been no improvement.

Ms. Abbott: Does the Secretary of State accept that, as well as the plight of Chelmsford to Liverpool Street commuters, he should consider the plight of commuters in London generally? It has been revealed today that London is the most expensive commuter city in Europe—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. It was my fault.

Ms. Abbott: We pay more in general and more for single journeys. Why should London commuters continue to pay astronomical fares for an increasingly shabby and sub-standard service?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady should ask the Labour party spokesmen on the subject. I suspect that they would not agree with her, and neither would I.

Mr. Tony Banks: Come on.

Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) will restrain himself, I will answer the question.
I am sure that neither the Opposition spokesmen nor the Government would agree that it would be a sensible course of action now to cut fares on Network SouthEast. Investment would be a much better use of resources. Would the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) cut fares and, therefore, investment?

Tyne Valley Rail Service

Mr. Amos: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the extent of achievement of the performance targets set by his Department for the operation of the Tyne Valley rail service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McLoughlin: British Rail recognises that the quality of service on some lines in the north-east is lower than the customer is entitled to expect and it is taking steps to improve its performance.

Mr. Amos: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he give the lie to those mischief makers in my constituency who say that the Tyne Valley line is to be closed? Will he confirm, first, that British Rail has no plans to close the line and, secondly, that when British Rail is privatised, as I hope that it soon will be, the line will continue to receive a large subsidy from the Government?

Mr. McLoughlin: I can certainly confirm that there are no plans to close the Tyne Valley services.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear on a number of occasions that the fact that we are seeking to privatise British Rail does not mean that we would not continue to offer subsidies to provincial rail services.

Mr. Flynn: rose——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not from the relevant part of the world.

Mr. Flynn: My question is connected.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may continue.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that part of the improvement of service on the Tyne Valley line involves the improvement of safety? Is he not alarmed at the 700 accidents that have occured, some on the Tyne Valley line where passengers have fallen from trains? There was one such accident in my constituency a fortnight ago, when a man fell from a moving train into the path of another train, and 100 passengers have been killed in such accidents. Should not the Minister press British Rail for a fresh, independent investigation into such accidents?

Mr. McLoughlin: Any accident of that sort is serious and each one is individually dealt with by the railway inspectorate. There is no common consistency in the accidents to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Railway Policy

Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek an early meeting with his continental counterparts to discuss railway policy.

Mr. Rifkind: I regularly see my community counter-parts at meetings of the European council of transport Ministers. Railway policy was a major item on the agenda of our last meeting in Brussels on 27 March.

Mr. Adley: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed that while we discuss the privatisation of our railways, Community countries—with the possible exception of one small country—carry on improving their already excellent rail systems? Has he also noticed that in our party the main proponents of railway privatisation tend to be those who delivered the poll tax to a grateful nation? Will he please ensure that we do not have a poll tax on wheels; and will he not muck about with the rail system in such a way that he has to come to the House and tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) that he cannot demand privatisation and a continuing level of subsidy at the same time? There is no sense in continuing heavily to subsidise the system if one's purpose is to privatise it. We need a transport policy that seeks deliberately to transfer traffic from road to rail.

Mr. Rifkind: I believe that my hon. Friend is out of touch with the mainstream of European opinion on this matter. Not only are the Dutch Government considering the privatisation of their railways, but the European Commission has expressly called for the introduction of competition to the railways. Therefore, on this—though on no other matter I disagree with my hon. Friend and prefer the views of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), who was quoted in the South London Press on 12 April as saying that a privatised rail network may provide a "higher standard service".

Ms. Ruddock: The Secretary of State misquotes me, of course, as I made it very clear that even if privatisation could provide a higher standard of service it would also undoubtedly provide much higher fares. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman meets his continental counterparts, will he take advice from them on fares? He cites the Dutch Government, who intend to double the number of people travelling on public transport in the next 20 years. Surely in this capital city we should be doing the same. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really want to get people off the tube and off the railway into their private cars, thereby causing further congestion? Has he seen and does he agree with the editorial in the Evening Standard today which says that when people begin to lose confidence in their Government's ability to run a railway they will question their ability to run anything else?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Lady has some explaining to do because the South London Press directly quotes her observations on this matter, to the effect that a privatised railway network may provide a higher standard of service. I note that the hon. Lady has not withdrawn that observation.
The hon. Lady should realise that if she wishes, as I wish, to encourage more people to use the railway service, it is manifestly clear that the best way to do that is to ensure that the railways face the same competition as other transport services. Experience with the airlines, buses and other forms of transport has invariably shown that the travelling public get a better quality of service when choice is available. That is why the Dutch and Japanese Governments and the European Commission are pointing


in that direction. On past form, we shall have to wait only a few years before the Labour party comes along in the same direction.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the work of the Crown prosecution service.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Last year the Crown prosecution service completed proceedings relating to nearly 1·6 million defendants in the magistrates court and more than 140,000 defendants in the Crown court.

Mr. Marshall: What success is the Crown prosecution service having in recruiting additional staff?

The Solicitor-General: Over the past year recruiting has been very successful. The rate of recruitment has doubled, with a net gain of 210 lawyers in post, which means that vacancies have fallen from 23 to 15 per cent. That has been heartening to the service, and efforts are continuing, especially in areas still under stress.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Solicitor-General believe that the process has speeded up as a result? Is this having any impact on the numbers of people held on remand?

The Solicitor-General: I think that it is having a good effect on the efficiency of the service, on the ability of the service to carry out its review and on the ability of lawyers in post to do more of the work in court as—well as on their general reviewing work—and that is to the general benefit. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a statistical answer on speed, but if he writes to me I can send him the information.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Solicitor-General will recall that the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which set up the Crown prosecution service, received all-party support. Nevertheless, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and I raised questions about the relationships between the heads of the services, chief constables, salary levels and the professional status of the service's employees. Obviously these were matters that would be judged over time. I remember that we asked for a review after five years and that the Attorney-General rejected our request. We now have a report from the Public Accounts Committee, which draws attention to the fact that two and a half years after its inception the objectives of the service have not yet been met and that it is costing twice as much as the previous arrangements. Those are matters for which the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are directly responsible, so it seems fair to ask the Solicitor-General what he intends to do about them.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman should remember the constructive and frequently praising remarks of the Select Committee on Home Affairs when it carried out its review nearly a year ago. The salaries, the career structure and the training scheme that have been brought into place in the past year have all had an excellent effect on morale within the service and on the recruitment that I have described to the House.

The Gulf

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General if he will set out his duties in relation to the conduct and aftermath of the Gulf war and observance of human rights and international law.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): As the Government's principal legal adviser, I give advice to Ministers on any matter involving domestic or international legal issues.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Attorney-General the question of which I gave his office notice this morning? What has been the Government's legal and other response to the request made by Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan on behalf of the United Nations refugees committee that sanctions should be lifted? Is not it desperately urgent, in view of the sweltering summer and the likely outbreak of hepatitis, cholera and typhoid? If we are to help the Shias and Kurds, do not we sometimes have to talk to Baghdad?

The Attorney-General: It is true that the hon. Gentleman, in his invariably courteous way, gave me notice of his question earlier today. I have to say that the matter is one of policy for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the provisions of Security Council resolution 687, which was adopted on 3 April, and especially paragraph 20, which lifts sanctions imposed by resolution 661 in respect of foodstuffs, subject only to notification to the sanctions committee.

Mr. Winnick: Will any steps be taken with the relevant international bodies to ensure that those responsible for the crimes committed in Kuwait during the terror of Iraqi occupation and the crimes further committed against the Kurds will be tried by an international tribunal? As Nazi war criminals were tried in 1945–46 for crimes against humanity, why should Saddam Hussein be exempted from the same rules? There is undoubtedly a strong case that he should be tried as well.

The Attorney-General: These matters depend upon a clear understanding of all the facts when they become available. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Foreign Ministers of the Twelve agreed—I think that it was last week—to work towards bringing criminals, and Mr. Saddam Hussein in particular, to justice. It is necessary, first, to have a clear understanding of the facts. The hon. Gentleman will also recall, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, that we do not have Saddam in our power.

Birmingham Pub Bombings

Mr. McFall: To ask the Attorney-General when he last discussed the Birmingham pub bombings case with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Ms. Short: To ask the Attorney-General when he last discussed the Birmingham pub bombings case with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Attorney-General: I frequently meet the Director to discuss departmental matters, and I last did so on 18 April, but I do not disclose the particular matters discussed.

Mr. McFall: Will the Attorney-General confirm that a number of police officers who must have lied and


fabricated evidence are still on duty? Are there any plans to suspend them, or may we expect business as usual in the West Midlands police force?

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Devon and Cornwall police force is carrying out investigations of a criminal nature into certain police officers who were named in the judgment of the Court of Appeal. More than that it is not proper for me to say at present.

Ms. Short: The Attorney-General will recall that the trial judge in the case said that if what the defendants were saying was true it would amount to the biggest conspiracy in the annals of criminal history. Can he assure us that he is dealing with the matter that seriously and that he will secure the prosecutions of those who organised it rather than a couple of low-level fall guys?

The Attorney-General: I do not think that the hon. Lady would expect the Director of Public Prosecutions to do more than apply the code for Crown prosecutors in this instance exactly as it is applied in other instances—that is, to look to see whether, at the conclusion of the police investigation, which is far advanced, there is enough evidence to give rise to the realistic prospect of a conviction and the public interest requires a prosecution. That is the test, and he will apply it.

Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. and learned Friend please advise the House whether the Birmingham Six were released because they could not possibly have carried out the pub bombings, because there was reasonable doubt, or because the evidence on which they were prosecuted was unsafe? That is a matter of public interest.

The Attorney-General: As the Court of Appeal made clear in the concluding words of its judgment, it held that the convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory on each of two specific grounds. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed. The consequence is that each of the Birmingham Six is entitled to the same presumption of innocence as anybody else in the country.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the basic problem is that the IRA, like the Disloyalists, go around killing people when the answer in Northern Ireland is for people to settle their differences by discussion and disagreement rather than by murder?

The Attorney-General: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend, as the whole House must agree, that that is a consummation devoutly to be wished. As soon as military and paramilitary organisations adopt that rule, we shall all be greatly satisfied and many innocent people will be relieved of the fear of death, let alone of wrongful conviction, from which they have suffered for so many years now.

Appeals

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Attorney-General what is the present average delay between (a) date of conviction, (b) granting of leave to appeal and (c) determination of the appeal in criminal cases in England and Wales; and if he has any plans to speed up the appeal process.

The Solicitor-General: Based on a sample of cases heard by the Court of Appeal in March this year, the average time between the lodging of a notice of appeal and decision by the single judge was just over 12 weeks, and from the grant of leave to appeal to final decision by the full court was just over 20 weeks.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. I am sure that he realises that one of the greatest causes of complaint by those who are ultimately acquitted is the length of time they are held while the various steps in the process allowing them to appeal are taken. Is there anything that he and his colleagues can do to try to make sure that if an appeal is put in it goes to the front of the queue and that the period for the intervening stages before it can be reduced, possibly by half?

The Solicitor-General: The Lord Chancellor keeps the state of business in the court under constant review and the court itself tries to put cases where the sentences are shorter, and therefore there is a risk of a person serving the sentence before an appeal against conviction can be heard, to the front of the queue and so to order its affairs that cases do not result in injustice.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Development Assistance

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions the Minister for Overseas Development has had with her German opposite number on development assistance.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I met the German Minister for Co-operation, Herr Spranger, at the Anglo-German summit on 11 March. We reached agreement on a wide range of current development issues. I hope to see him early in May. In the meantime, we are in touch by telephone.

Mr. Townsend: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Germany's criteria for the provision of such assistance are very similar to our own? In her recent discussions with her German opposite number, did she raise the matter of how Germany could best help to solve the vast problem of Kurdish relief, bearing in mind that that country will not be sending any military personnel into the region?

Mrs. Chalker: The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is yes. Obviously, the answer to his second will be embodied in my statement. At this stage, I would say simply that while the Germans may not have a presence in the region, they are contributing to the relief of suffering there.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the need for more international effort to provide appropriate assistance to Kurdish refugees, can the Minister explain to her German counterpart and, indeed, to this House what on earth possessed her to hand out chocolates to starving Kurdish children? Does not such a patronising gesture indicate a degree of insensitivity almost akin to Marie-Antoinette's infamous statement, "Let them eat cake."?

Mrs. Chalker: In a few moments, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, we shall come to a statement on this issue. In the meantime, let me say to the hon. Gentleman simply


that a large number of things were donated for me to take to the children. It would have been wrong to keep those things. What ought I to have done? Should I have prevented those children from having a little joy? How can the hon. Gentleman be so mean?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her reply to the last supplementary question. Can she tell me what progress is being made to persuade Germany and other developed countries to implement the Jamaica conditions, which were put forward by the Prime Minister with a view to reducing the indebtedness of developing countries?

Mrs. Chalker: At the Commonwealth Finance Minister's meeting last September, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put forward what are now known not as the Jamaica conditions but as the Trinidad conditions. Last week I discussed these with the IMF and the World bank. We are hopeful that debt relief provisions—that is to say, easier terms for heavily indebted countries—will be agreed later this summer. We are working with our partners on the issue, and the Germans are particularly supportive of what we are doing.

Mrs. Clwyd: Did the Minister discuss with her German counterpart the enormous famine facing Africa, with the threat of starvation hanging over 29 million people? What action have the Government decided to take?

Mrs. Chalker: I did indeed speak with my German counterpart about the tragic situation to which the hon. Lady has referred. As she has rightly said, up to 29 million people are affected. I asked the Germans to provide more assistance and to help me to make sure that European Community aid was more speedily delivered to the region, particularly the Horn of Africa. They have agreed to do so, and in my next talks with them I hope to hear more evidence of the movement that has taken place over the past six weeks. I know that the Germans are committed to taking action, their earlier problems having gone away.

South Africa

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase aid to South Africa consequent upon the dismantling of apartheid.

Mrs. Chalker: Our bilateral aid programme for black South Africans has grown rapidly in recent years to around £8 million in 1990–91. On present plans, it will rise steadily to over £10 million in 1992–93. We shall continue to play a constructive role in the development of a post-apartheid South Africa.

Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the system of apartheid blighted the educational and entrepreneurial opportunities of the blacks. Will British aid be directed to those two areas?

Mrs. Chalker: Indeed it will. In fact, this morning I met President de Klerk, and one of the matters that we discussed was how to secure the return of entrepreneurial growth that will stimulate the creation of jobs. In our programme, there is major emphasis on education and community development. By helping black South Africans to secure better education, we fit them for the jobs that we

hope will come through the growth that will be achieved once South Africa is fully accepted back into the international financial community.

Mr. Hain: Does not the Minister accept that it is highly premature to talk of increasing aid while township violence increases, while black people in South Africa still do not have the vote, and while political prisoners still fill the prisons? Will she remind President de Klerk that until there is an end to the township violence, which in the past five years has claimed more victims than the number of South African soldiers killed in the second world war, he should not be wining and dining in the capital of the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Chalker: As a matter of fact, 400 political prisoners have been released since February 1990, and more will be released in the coming weeks. The President of South Africa has plans to deal with township violence—but not by putting more people in custody. The South African Government want to reduce violence by action within the communities and a great deal of work is being undertaken to that end. There is a firm determination among members of that Government to proceed with finalising legislation to get rid of apartheid. When they have done that, I am sure that South Africa will gradually become a better place.

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Mr. Carrington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the inauguration of the European bank for reconstruction and development.

Mrs. Chalker: The European bank for reconstruction and development was formally inaugurated in London on 15 April by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Mitterrand. That was an historic occasion, which symbolised the coming together of east and west, and gave the new bank the necessary authority to start operations to support economic reform in central and eastern Europe.

Mr. Carrington: The establishment of that bank in London is greatly welcomed, as it consolidates London's position as the financial centre of Europe. The European bank for reconstruction and development has a primary role to play in consolidating the new-found freedoms of east European countries. What support are the British Government giving to it?

Mrs. Chalker: The United Kingdom's subscription to the capital base is £36·5 million over five years. The total subscribed capital is 10 billion ecu.

Dr. Kim Howells: Is the Minister aware of the enormous cost of dealing with just one problem in eastern Europe—that of cleaning up pollution? Does she agree that the sums mentioned are totally inadequate? As Britain is part of the same continent, what will the British Government do to help?

Mrs. Chalker: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's observations, because central and eastern Europe's pollution problems are horrendous. We are devoting our know-how funds in eastern Europe to providing that know-how to which the Government in each country give priority. I am certain that they will include some


environmental projects. Those Governments will be seeking environmental projects such as those that might be funded by the bank, to solve some of their pollution problems. We must ensure that those problems do not get worse, and that the clean-up starts as soon as possible.

Human Rights

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will ensure that the payment of aid funds by Her Majesty's Government to third world countries takes full account of the recipient's record on human rights.

Mrs. Chalker: Human rights is one of a number of important factors that we take fully into account in deciding aid allocations.

Mr. Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, with the exception of some humanitarian aid to refugees on the Thai-Burmese border, there will be no resumption of any aid to the Government of Burma until they respect the elections that were held last May in which the Opposition won 85 per cent. of the vote, release the Opposition's de facto leader who is still under house arrest, and un-ban the democratic parties that they have tried to suppress?

Mrs. Chalker: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Iraqi Refugees

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement following my visit to Turkey and Iran to assess the needs of Iraqi refugees and what more Britain intends to do further to relieve their tragic suffering.
Last Wednesday I reported to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on the first days of immediate relief that we have provided to Iraqi refugees in both countries. On Thursday I left for Turkey and Iran with Overseas Development Administration and diplomatic wing officials, and representatives of the British Red Cross, Save the Children Fund and Oxfam, all experts in the provision of humanitarian relief.
Our objective was to assess the current situation of refugees in the Turkey-Iraq and Iran-Iraq border areas, to stimulate improved communication and co-ordination of all aid donors on the ground and to plan our further relief to the refugees with the Governments and aid agencies of all involved. The generosity of Her Majesty in allowing us the use of an aircraft and crew of the Queen's Flight, and the helpful attitude of both the Turkish and Iranian Governments, and the Iranian air force, enabled my team and me to see a number of camps and have detailed discussions with Ministers, officials and aid personnel in both countries. I was also able to meet senior American and German military personnel to gain a clearer picture of both their immediate and future aid plans.
The plight of the Iraqi refugees is truly harrowing. Assistance is further advanced for those on the Turkish border than for those in Iran. The Turkish system has developed considerably during the last week, but needs continuing supplies. I will return to Turkey's work for the refugees in a moment, but first I deal with Iran. The situation is changing hour by hour. For those in Iran, the rate of delivery of supplies from all sources must be at least doubled, and donors must co-ordinate through the Iranian Red Crescent and with the Government of Iran as well as with the United Nations and international aid agencies.
There are now more than 1·2 million Iraqi refugees in Iran, with many thousands more over the border seeking entry through the three crossing points. The Iranian authorities told me that they are allowing several thousand in a day as they establish more camps and places in them, and provided that the refugees will give up their arms at the border. Around 1 million people, mainly Kurds but also Turkomans, Assyrians and Arabs, have come to the northern border provinces of west Azerbaijan and Bakhtaran, another 200,000 plus have moved on to east Azerbaijan and there are more than 50,000 Shi'ites in Khuzestan in southern Iran across the border from Basra.
Within the northern provinces, the response of the Iranian Red Crescent organisation and their provincial governors is growing daily with help from donors through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Iranian military. Britain was one of the first to supply directly to Orumieh in west Azerbaijan, 160 tonnes so far having been delivered, plus 3 million water purifying tablets. The Iranian Red Crescent works through the provincial governors to secure supplies, distribute them and maintain order in the camps; 55 camps have been established in Azerbaijan and Bakhtaran. The Iranian Red Crescent and

local officials discussed their difficulties openly and welcomed our suggestions to help to improve the organisation of supplies and health care.
Our visit to two of the 22 camps near Orumieh, in the foothills of the mountains north of Piranshahr, confirmed that existing facilities are overwhelmed by numbers entering. The queues to cross the border at Tamarcheen are still 3 to 4 km long and there are few or no facilities along the road. On the road and in many camps, conditions of shelter, health, food and water are horrendous and urgently need improvement.
The health of women and children is particularly at risk because of unclean water, no sanitation, limited health care and irregular food distribution. In the mosque at one camp, the first point of arrival, whole families lie huddled together in row upon row with no facilities at all. They move on into tents, where they have little more space, but where ground dampness makes the problem of extreme cold at night much worse. The Iranian authorities are setting up new camps continuously, but need more assistance to do so. The International Committee of the Red Cross is helping but the Iranian Red Crescent needs our help in west Azerbaijan.
After discussions with Iranian Government officials, the Iranian Red Crescent, our own British Red Cross, The Tehran representative of Save the Children Fund and local officials in Orumieh, I have set up under British Red Cross supervision the supply of tents, blankets and ground sheets through Orumieh to the west Azerbaijan camps. This supply operation starts tomorrow morning and will access the area by air either to Yusekova in Turkey or to Orumieh, with onward ground transport to the Iranian camps.
To achieve this, we shall double the number of relief flights to Iran to four flights a week. The ground transport will be organised by between the Red Cross and the Iranian Red Crescent with a resident British Red Cross official working with the British embassy in Tehran to ensure co-ordination of supplies and personnel in this massive effort. We were advised by the Iranian Red Crescent that it needs many more trucks, and this is being examined urgently. We shall purchase food locally wherever possible, as we are already doing in Turkey through the local Red Crescent.
To meet the health needs, I have agreed with the British Red Cross to co-ordinate with Save the Children Fund to set up camp health centres in west Azerbaijan, where we know there is a very great need. We will start immediately with one centre for up to 150,000 refugees with satellite units. This will be managed by Save the Children Fund and will run initially for a period of three months. I expect to extend this and to establish further centres through the British Red Cross.
As a result of our visit, I can also announce today an initial contribution of £2 million from the £20 million pledged by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the ICRC's excellent programme to help refugees in Iran. In addition to the £12 million we have already committed to the European Community for its assistance to non-governmental organisations, and the EC's own contributions to the ICRC and UN appeals. I will be considering further contributions to the UN appeals. We need to know the UN agencies' plans in order to judge how best we can help. I hope this will be soon. There will be further help to British NGOs as plans firm up and are


agreed. I shall be seeing the United Nations secretary-general tomorrow morning, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) will be meeting Prince Sadruddin Khan in Geneva tomorrow.
In Turkey we are continuing the airlift of relief supplies from this country and the airdrops to the refugees by RAF Hercules aircraft and Chinook helicopters. Meanwhile, urgent action is being taken to establish protected refugee camps in northern Iraq near Zakhu and to persuade the refugees to come down from the mountains as quickly as possible. The United Nations involvement in taking over responsibility for these camps is crucial, as is our overall objective of getting the refugees to return to their homes in peace and security. As I said earlier, the plan is unfolding hour by hour. There are regular meetings with British Red Cross and other agencies, with colleagues in Government and links with our European partners, the United States military and the international agencies. I am most grateful to Michael Whitlam of the British Red Cross, and to all the agencies and to our troops working in Turkey, for the excellent work they are doing.
The message I want to leave with the House this afternoon is that, following our visit, we are stepping up our relief operations to respond to the urgent needs in Iran through our own NGOs and the international agencies. We shall continue our operations on the Turkish border as we establish the protected refugee centres under Operation Haven inside Iraq.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I am pleased to see the Minister back in the House after what I know was an arduous, difficult and distressing journey. She has now seen for herself the appalling conditions in which the Kurdish refugees are living. I welcome the additional assistance that she has announced today. I understand—perhaps she will confirm this—that on the Piranshahr crossing, where more than 1 million people have crossed the border from Iraq to Iran, the situation is even worse than it was when I saw it nine days ago. Is the Minister aware that some of those people have been on top of the same mountain for three weeks? Can she give the House the numbers of refugees on each side of the borders with Turkey and Iran?
The Minister referred to immediate relief. Can she tell us how much aid has gone directly from the United Kingdom to the Kurdish refugees separately in Turkey and in Iraq? Can she tell us on what days and in what tonnage it was received by the Kurds? If she cannot answer that question immediately—I shall understand if she cannot—I should be glad if she would write to me. Will she tell us what contribution the European Community has made to both countries?
Does the Minister agree that, after weeks of miscalculation and poor organisation, perhaps as many as two million people who have fled their homes are dying on the bitter cold mountain slopes of Iraqi Kurdistan, still desperate to get to the borders and having to fight one another for scraps of food?
The Minister has confirmed that the Iranians have been totally overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of refugees. Will she join me in warmly congratulating them on the tremendous efforts that they have made to deal sympathetically and humanely with the human tragedy confronting them?
I welcome the call to double deliveries to Iran. Has not Iran been forced temporarily to slow down the stream of refugees attempting to cross the border because it simply cannot handle any more? Is the right hon. Lady satisfied with the treatment of the refugees on the Turkish border? Will she confirm that the safe havens will hold only about 360,000 refugees and will not be able to take refugees from the Iranian borders?
Does the Minister recall that on 28 March, during an Adjournment debate on Iraqi Kurdistan, my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) called for assistance to the Kurds and I also called for humanitarian aid? Why did the Minister say on a BBC programme two weeks ago that I must have been clairvoyant to have anticipated that need? It did not take clairvoyance to realise what was happening: we all knew. Perhaps today the Minister would like to withdraw her comment.
Will the Minister admit that the Overseas Development Administration is not structured to deal quickly and effectively with a crisis of this type; or is it simply the case that, once again, the Foreign Office has been following the United States approach, based on its cool relationship with Iran over the hostages? Does she agree that, although we must make every effort to secure the quick release of the hostages, emergency humanitarian aid for the Kurdish refugees must not be affected by any other consideration?
Will the right hon. Lady tell us whether it is true that the Treasury has refused the ODA extra money to pay for the emergency effort? Surely the existing aid budget cannot possibly afford the £.1·5 million a week for Hercules aircraft and Chinook helicopter flights without taking money from famine relief in Africa and from vital long-term development programmes throughout the third world. Does she also agree that in this country we need the equivalent of Medecins Sans Frontieres, the French medical relief agency, which was on the border of Iraq and working within days?
I make an urgent plea to the Minister. Will she urge the British Government and the United Nations to back any viable suggestions which will enable the Kurdish people to return to their own homes and country as soon as possible to live in peace and security in Iraq?

Mrs. Chalker: As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) anticipated at one stage during her long question, I shall have to write to her with some of the details. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) complains about the length of my statement. Had I not given the facts and figures, the questions would have been even longer.
The queues at Piranshahr appear to be shorter than they were when the hon. Lady was there nine days ago, but that does not mean that there are not thousands and thousands of refugees in the foothills and not on the road. I do not necessarily believe that, because the queues on the road are that much shorter, the number trying to cross the border is substantially smaller.
Immediate relief is and has been going to Iran for the Kurdish people for more than three weeks, but it is not only for Kurdish people, as I made clear in my statement. I cannot tell the hon. Lady how much has been received by the Kurdish people, because in the camps that we visited we found a mixture of groups with, as I said, Arabs, Assyrians, and Turkomans as well. They were all refugees—and they were all Iraqis. The hon. Lady asked me to


detail what had gone to Kurdish refugees; I cannot do that. The relief sent out more than two weeks ago by the Overseas Development Administration to Iran was received and distributed within a week, I was told, and the supplies that went out last week were being distributed as we were there on Saturday.
The European Community contributions are being made to both countries, but we have not been given details of that so far. We have despatched more than 440 tonnes of goods to Turkey and more than 160 tonnes of goods to Iran. We know that in Turkey and in northern Iraq more than 200 tonnes of our supplies have been dropped by the C130s. Aircraft. with further supplies are flying daily to the Turkish-Iraqi border, and nine helicopters have joined the airlift there.
On Iran, I have announced the further help of field health centres and more supplies flights. However, the logistics of distribution need to be worked out carefully with the Iranian Red Crescent. I am afraid that the hon. Lady will have to wait a little longer for those details. The important point is to get on with getting the supplies there and to ensure that the routes to the refugees are getting supplies rather than to keep asking for endless reports, which only holds up the supply to the refugees.
It is true that, for sound reasons of health care and of anxiety about the violence in the camps, there has been a slowing of the stream of Iraqi refugees across the border into Iran. The treatment that we saw in the early days on the Turkish border has improved, and people are now working better together than they were two weeks ago.
The safe havens will be able to accommodate more than 360,000 people provided that they succeed and that the Iraqi troops continue to leave the safe havens in peace so that people can gradually begin the return. It is intended not that people should remain in the safe havens, but that they should pass through them and go back to their own towns down routes supervised by the United Nations.
I am well aware that many people believed that there would be a substantial refugee flood across the borders, but even the Governments of Iran and of Turkey never envisaged, even on 28 March, the size of that flow of refugees.
The hon. Lady asked me whether my Department was structured to deal with such crises. We have never before had to deal with 29 million people at risk of starvation in Africa and at the same time a refugee crisis in Iran and in Turkey. We have increased the staff in the relevant departments, and we will send people to help to cope with the immediate needs both in Tehran and in Ankara. My own head of population is the co-ordinator to the whole relief project in Turkey and in Iran, and will be able to travel freely between the two countries to do what is necessary to ensure that the co-ordination is as good as it can be.
We cannot achieve any of that as a single donor or even as European community donors. I am concerned about the lack of speed of the United Nations in dealing with the problems. That is why, 10 days ago, I spoke to the Secretary-General, and I will be with him tomorrow morning to take the matter further. As I said, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will talk with Prince Sadruddin Khan. We believe that we will be able to do more as the days unfold.
However, what I have announced today is a response to the most urgent need—the need for health care and for

continuing supplies. I am grateful both to the Turkish Government and to the Iranian Government for the welcome that they gave our offer and for their helpfulness in trying to make it happen on the ground, where it matters to the refugees.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am aware of the importance of the statement, but today is a private Members' day. I ask hon. Members to put single questions and not to go on to give us the benefit of their views.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her impressive and constructive initiative to relieve the appalling misery of the Kurds, following upon the dynamic leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in setting up the safe havens. Does she agree that the condition of the Shi'ites in the south is a cause for massive concern about their safety? Will she make it clear to Saddam Hussein that military force will be used to stop him further oppressing the Shi'ites in the south and that such use will be entirely consistent with the United Nations resolution?

Mrs. Chalker: I hope that the memorandum of understanding signed by the Government of Iraq with the United Nations will mean that the refugees—the Shi'ites in the south and many others in the north—will have their safety protected. If it is insufficient, further action will be taken, as I told my hon. and learned Friend in the Select Committee evidence session last week. The International Committees of the Red Cross and Red Crescent societies are working in the south. We believe that the French will be doing more in that area. Although we imagine that at present there are only 50,000 Shi'ite refugees, they certainly need protection and help, as do all the other Iraqi refugees.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Does the right hon. Lady recall that last week she made a point about the release of the western hostages? Is it not strange that this afternoon she has made no reference to that matter? Is she aware that, until pressure can be brought on Israel to release the hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners held in the appalling conditions of the prison camp at Khiam, and until Sheik Obeid is released, after his criminal abduction by Israeli forces, there can be no progress on the question of the release of western hostages? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Have some sense about why not. What pressure can be brought on Israel to make her conform to standards of international conduct in such matters?

Mrs. Chalker: On the fifth anniversary of the taking of John McCarthy as a hostage, I was asked what I could do. I said that I would do my best. I told Dr. Velayati that the purpose of my visit was to assess what further help we could give in providing humanitarian relief to Iraqi refugees in Iran. My statement this afternoon has been on the subject of the Iraqi refugees. Separately from discussing Iraqi refugee help, I asked the Government of Iran on humanitarian grounds to use their influence to secure the release of the hostages. I explained that, if they were released, it would be possible to transform our bilateral relationship.
Dr. Velayati said that the taking and holding of hostages was against the policy of the Iranian


Government, and that they had made efforts to secure the release of the hostages and would continue to do so. I told Dr. Velayati that we, too, were opposed to the taking and holding of hostages by anyone. I said that we had made that clear to the Israelis many times and that we would continue to do so. We had a good discussion on the subject.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I congratulate the Government on the speed with which they have responded to the tragedy. My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the problem of polluted water. What is the international relief community doing to ensure that types of food which could make a tragic situation infinitely worse are not sent to these areas? I am thinking in particular of the difficulty that could arise with dried milk powder. If one adds polluted water to it, one provides a culture which simply allows the disease organisms to multiply. That could make the tragedy infinitely worse and more awful.

Mrs. Chalker: I must tell my right hon. Friend that we have indeed been discussing with the agencies how to get a supply of water by water piping. We shall be supporting a project, which Oxfam is carrying out with the help of Army engineers, to bring water to camps which have no supply. Some camps, particularly in west Azerbaijan, have water supplies, but the water is not pure. That is why 3 million water purification tablets went in the hold of our plane last week. We are also providing advice to the camps about water testing, so that it is known which camps must use which purification methods. That will be done through the field health centres. I appreciate the importance of milk powder being mixed with pure water for baby milk, and that message will also be delivered clearly and consistently.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Minister answer the question put to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) about the treatment of refugees by Turkish soldiers on the Turkish side of the border, where there have been killings? Given the Turks' inhumane treatment of the Kurds, what representations did she make on their behalf?

Mrs. Chalker: I certainly made it clear to those in the Turkish Government and others to whom I spoke that inhumane treatment of refugees of any race achieves nothing. In the early days, there was action which should never have taken place. I believe that the position has improved; I was certainly told that it had by those running the camps. Given the sheer fear and everything else that was wrong in the earliest days when people were teeming over the mountains, it is hardly surprising that things went wrong. What is important is that the Turkish Government are trying to put matters right and, I believe, are succeeding.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the good standing of the United Nations as an effective force is once again on the line? Will she confirm that not only the British Government but this House and the British people look to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to take the swiftest possible action both to ensure that aid continues under its agency and to secure the future of the safe haven plan in Iraq?

Mrs. Chalker: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend, as I had some difficulty in getting certain people in the United Nations to understand the urgency. I exclude from that comment some local people in places such as Tehran and Ankara, who are sincerely trying to help. Many people who for various reasons cannot do relief work in other countries, such as the Sudan, are coming into the area and switching their personal efforts to work in Turkey and Iran. The operation will not succeed until the United Nations organises the whole matter centrally and, indeed, gives a swift reply, which sadly to date we have not had.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: In view of the demand that Iraqi troops withdraw from the safe havens and of reports that Saddam Hussein is simply replacing military personnel with police personnel in some refugee areas, can the Minister assure us that that will not stop emergency relief getting through to the people who require it?

Mrs. Chalker: Yes.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that people such as Terry Waite and John McCarthy are small in number but great in the injustice from which they have suffered for some five years? The fact that the Iranian Government now ask us for aid, having turned it down on other occasions when it suited them, should give us a proper opportunity to say that humanity may suffer, but we are not prepared to let those people suffer such grave injustices and may not help unless the Iranian Government are willing to help free those people who have suffered unnecessarily and unjustly. The Kurds are suffering in great numbers, but all justice involves single people, and single people who have done no harm are suffering a cruel, unjust fate thanks to the Iranians.

Mrs. Chalker: I repeat that the help provided for Iraqi refugees has no bearing on the hostage situation. Some newspapers have linked the two issues. We are giving aid to the Iraqi refugees for humanitarian reasons. Many Iranian families are sharing their homes, their goods, their possessions, their food and their shelter with Iraqi refugees. The Iranian Government have not asked for help for themselves; they have asked that those people who have come to their country for shelter should be assisted. That is what the international community is doing and must continue to do.

Ms. Clare Short: The emergency aid is very important, but the real answer, as the Minister said, is for people to be able to go back to their homes. Will she tell us more about the Government's thinking? Safe havens, yes, but we do not know what the answer is for Shi'ites in the south. How will the refugees be protected when they go home? Will UN military forces be deployed? I see no other option. Is that the Government's thinking?

Mrs. Chalker: It is fair to say that the eventual solution, especially in the Shi'ite south, has yet to be worked out. The UN forces are coming up from Baghdad and hope to establish corridors down which the Iraqi refugees may pass on their way back to their homes. That is being worked out, and we do not yet have the answers from the United Nations.
In the meantime, it is critical to get the Iraqi refugees down from the mountains, or they will freeze to death. It is extremely difficult to distribute the relief supplies. I was in the back of an RAF helicopter and was roped in to push out supplies. We did not use the flight simply to observe; we delivered on every flight we made. It is dangerous work, but it must be done, and we will do it. However, it is only a temporary solution and we must get people down from the mountains. Safe havens will achieve that in the first instance, but further developments must follow, and we are working hard on those.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: May I ask my right hon. Friend what many people want to know? Why is the United Nations dragging its heels over accepting responsibility for the protection of the Kurdish refugee camps? Has not a great opportunity been lost? Whatever happened to the new world order? Will my right hon. Friend use less than diplomatic language to bring home this point to the Secretary-General tomorrow?

Mrs. Chalker: I assure my hon. Friend that, when necessary, I can use extremely strong language. I shall do so to get the results that we all want. The United Nations should be fully prepared to take on its humanitarian responsibilities. Local United Nations representatives are trying hard. It is at the centre and the top that we must get things sorted out.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: We have now had four statements on this issue in the past eight days. Is it not apparent that it is a lot easier to kill people in war than it is to feed them by the humanitarian means now being used? The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) spoke about the new world order. We were promised that, when the clean, clinical war was ended, there would be a new world order, but all we can see is a winding trail of human misery on the mountains of Iran, Iraq and Turkey.
Those of us who opposed the bombing of the Kurds are now more than ever justified in pointing out that before people, in the coalition or otherwise, talk about war in the middle east or anywhere else, they should remember that it is easy to talk about it, easy to execute, but very difficult to end.

Mrs. Chalker: I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should have left Saddam Hussein and Iraqi troops in Kuwait. The allied forces followed Security Council resolution 678 to the letter. Although the House does not wish Saddam Hussein to continue in office for one moment more, the matter must be sorted out by the Iraqi people. Until then, we must see how much help the international community can give to protect the Iraqi people.

Mr. David Harris: Will my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) accept the thanks of the House for their visits, which have helped to maintain world interest in this tragedy at a time when the attention span of the international media is remarkably short? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should look to those countries that have felt unable, once again, to back Britain and America in sending military resources to help sort out the problems to provide greater financial resources in the humanitarian effort?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those countries that find, for whatever reason, that they

cannot support our efforts in establishing safe havens in Turkey, Iran or Iraq, can contribute to relief by donating money. No nation can stand aside while this international tragedy continues. I hope that there will be a proper response to the United Nations' appeals, but I remind the House that that a proper response will come only when countries know what the United Nations intends to do with the money that it collects.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scale of the effort on behalf of the refugees is huge because, once safe havens have saved the refugees' lives, we shall have to help them to return to the places from which they came? The natural supply routes to the Kurdish areas lie through Baghdad and up the Tigris and the Euphrates valleys. Therefore, we must insist, through the United Nations, that Baghdad permits the transport of food and supplies and the restoration of towns and villages to their rightful owners—the refugees. Will she explain that problem carefully to the Secretary-General and ensure that such provision is made?

Mrs. Chalker: I shall do my best to explain why the United Nations must play a much more active role right away. However, a tremendous amount can be done in the interim to give the immediate relief to the Iraqi refugees and I am also working on that to ensure that it happens. I believe that the solution to the Iraqi refugees' problems against Saddam Hussein will take a long time to reach finality. In the meantime, there is much work to be done in providing relief. In that sense, the United Nations must get its act together.

Mr. Simon Hughes: May I take it from the Minister's helpful statement that the practical priorities lie in getting people down from the mountains and reducing the queues and that, until those problems are dealt with, the suffering will continue? However, equally important are the political priorities, including a co-ordinated European effort, an effective United Nations takeover—I am grateful for the Minister's comments because the United Nations needs that push—and a political solution that guarantees that the peace treaty will protect the rights of all minority groups in Iraq and the adjacent countries in the middle east.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is right. Bringing people down from the mountains and giving them a secure place is one of the first priorities. However, providing clean water, health care, food and shelter are also critical to saving lives, particularly as we bring down the most sick people first; others may remain on the mountains for days or even weeks until they can be brought down.
The hon. Gentleman is also right in saying that there is a political priority within the European Community. I believe that the European Community countries are working well together in this respect. We want an effective United Nations reaction, but it is taking a long time to get up and running. The peace treaty must encompass the long-term security of the Iraq people. Without that there will be no peace.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: When Martin Woollacott of The Guardian filed his copy to his news desk on 27 March, millions of refugees were on the move and it did not take clairvoyance to predict what would happen—it was then well established.
On a more constructive note, may I ask the question that I asked the Secretary of State for Defence the other day because what he then described as hypothetical is reality? Discussions are taking place between the Iraqi Government and the Kurdish leadership. If those discussions lead to an agreement, will a British Minister go to the United Nations to seek a resolution to underpin any agreement that the two parties draw up? That is important for the Kurdish people because, if that initiative is taken, I believe the camps will empty and the people will go back to their towns, cities and communities in Kurdistan.

Mrs. Chalker: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's final question. We need to look carefully at that subject, because there is no doubt that we are all trying to establish peace in Iraq for the ordinary people of Iraq who have been so cruelly deceived by Saddam Hussein and his ambitions. However, there is absolutely no doubt that it is not a straightforward objective to achieve, so I ask the hon. Member to be a little patient. No stone will be left unturned to bring peace to the Iraqi people. If what he has described is the right way to proceed, we shall so proceed, but I shall not give a commitment in case something else comes into the picture. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that.
At the end of March, we asked the Turkish Government and other Governments how many people were approaching their countries trying to come in. The figures were nothing like those reported even in The Guardian newspaper. I believe that there was some anticipation by some press that was certainly not being reported by the Governments of the area.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her strenuous efforts to help refugees in Iran and Turkey. Does she not feel that other countries should be pulling far more weight? It is not just a question of the United Nations. What has happened to the European Community money? Is it not apparent that many countries are more than happy to leave us to it? Where is everyone else?

Mrs. Chalker: I know that certainly one British voluntary organisation received 2 million ecu of the European Community money within 24 hours of appealing for help to carry out its relief operations. There are probably many more such incidents with which I have not had time to catch up in the few hours since I landed back in this country.
The European Community countries are seeking to give help. My anxiety has been that the help has not been sufficiently co-ordinated. That was why I met French and German diplomats, and many others, in Ankara. I shall seek to do all that I can to see that the European Community countries pull together, but I believe that Britain, having given help relatively early, can pass on information and try to improve the overall help. We should not stop just because we are not satisfied with the actions of others.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Given the scorching summer heat that is now upon that part of the world, and its consequences for bringing the waterborne diseases,the "silent assassins" that bring hepatitis, cholera and typhoid—who is right: Prince Sadruddin Khan, who, on behalf of

the United Nation's refugees, says that there have to be conditions for sanctions to be lifted, or the Attorney-General, who said during Questions Time that there was no legal impediment to bringing in the necessary provisions?
Will the Minister clear up whether Mr. Salinger is right in suggesting that it was the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) who talked the Americans into all this? That is what he said to Mr. David Frost. Was he right?

Mrs. Chalker: I often see videos and television programmes that make me wonder where the information put across on them came from. The hon. Gentleman's final question falls into that category.
Nobody is unaware of the danger of waterborne diseases, although the areas in the northern provinces in which most of the refugees are now gathered are not as hot as the hon. Gentleman suggested. It is because of the dangers from waterborne diseases that one of the main objectives of the first camp field centre, with its satellites, that we are setting up will be to sort out the public health needs of the camps in west Azerbaijan, as well as mother and child health. We are giving special attention to that serious matter.

Mr. John Marshall: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of her mission. Does she agree that the fate of the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south has underlined how fatal it would have been to appease Saddam Hussein? Will she assure us that the Government will seek to block his attempt to sell £2 billion worth of oil on the world market so long as he practises butchery in Baghdad and in northern and southern Iraq?

Mrs. Chalker: We regard Saddam Hussein's appeal as totally unacceptable. The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is yes.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I tell the Minister, for what it is worth, that I am in complete agreement with her observation that the protected refugee camps ought to be administered by United Nations personnel as soon as possible? The terrible problems created by the war require decisive intervention by the United Nations. As yet there has been none.
What discussions have taken place in the security council on the urgent provision of supplies and the restoration of essential services to other areas of Iraq?

Mrs. Chalker: To the best of my knowledge, the Security Council has not discussed those matters in such detail. The British ambassador and the representatives of other European Community countries have discussed the question, but the Security Council has not. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his other comments.

Mr. Tony Banks: I welcome what the British Government are doing. I should like the Minister to spell out in more detail what contribution some of the rich Arab oil sheikdoms and the Japanese are making to providing humanitarian relief. What may happen if the United Nations is not prepared to police the safe havens? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the British Government might have to dig themselves in for a long haul? Saddam Hussein will bide his time until the protection for the Kurds is removed, before finishing off


the job that he started some time ago. Will the British Government give an undertaking to maintain a military presence until the safety of the Kurds is assured?

Mrs. Chalker: Japan has sent money for supplies. I believe that it may have been used for local purchase in Turkey, but I do not yet know how much it was. I shall try to find out what each country is doing, because co-ordination of information, among other things, has been desperately lacking in the past three and a half weeks. We seek to act on a bilateral basis with other donors, but in the rapidly changing situation we cannot know at all stages what each country has done. I hope in due time to be able to give the information to the House.
The position of the United Nations is worrying, but I believe that it fully intends to fulfil its responsibilities. The question is, how soon? We envisage needing to stay in the area for several months rather than weeks, but we shall do all that we can to ensure that United Nations personnel will be present to look after the refugees. The United Nations disaster relief organisation and the High Commissioner for Refugees exist to do just that.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The Minister will be aware that many hundreds, if not thousands, of tonnes of much-needed materials have been collected by voluntary organisations to send to the Kurds. Does she know how much of this material has gone overseas, how much is in storage, and how much will go next week? Is some of the material included in the figures which she has given the House?
Is there not a great problem about the capacity of RAF aircraft and aircraft that we are hiring? Should we riot be seeking to hire aircraft such as American C5 Galaxies, which can carry 125 tonnes? Presumably such aircraft could land readily at Iranian airports, bearing in mind that Iran Air operates Boeing 747s, which can carry 100 tonnes of material. Such aircraft are coming to the United Kingdom to collect material.

Mrs. Chalker: Huge quantities of relief supplies from quite small voluntary organisations and from more major organisations, such as the Save the Children Fund, the British Red Cross and Oxfam, have gone with our initial airlifts. We shall continue to operate our airlifts, and tonight we are flying out for Oxfam water equipment and vehicles for the water project that is being participated in by the Army in Turkey. That is one example among many of what is taking place. We have agreed already to help British Aid for the Kurds—a new organisation—in just that way, and we shall continue to provide that assistance.
We seem to have adequate capacity with our cargo planes, some of which will be flying to airports that are not served by Iran Air and therefore may not have the capacity to take a Galaxy or a 747. Provided that they can take 707s, we can get supplies in quickly and efficiently.

Mr. George Foulkes: Is not the simple truth that the Government both underestimated the need and were far too slow to react to a problem that was evident as long ago as 27 March? Was it not only when my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) went to see the plight of the people for herself that the Minister was stirred into action?
Will the Minister admit that it was unwise to appear to link humanitarian aid to the release of the hostages? We

are all, of course, fighting for their release. Will she admit that even now the aid that she has announced this afternoon is not enough? The much maligned German Government are sending five planes a day, while we are talking of only about four planes a week. The German Government have announced aid amounting to £130 million over the past few days while we have anounced aid of only a few millions today. The French Minister with responsibilities for aid visited the area and was present throughout Easter while our Minister has only recently visited it, and has only just returned.
Will the Minister join us in thanking the British people for the way in which they have volunteered—I speak of doctors and nurses—to go out and help? We thank the British people for the way in which they have given financial assistance. Will the Minister admit that if we are effectively to tackle such a huge problem we shall need just a fraction of the determination and the resources that went into fighting the Gulf war?

Mrs. Chalker: I am quite surprised at the hon. Gentleman.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am not.

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. and learned Friend seems to think that his intervention was true to form. Never mind, I remain surprised.
None of the Governments in the area had made available to us at the end of March any of the information which the hon. Gentleman claims to have known about. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) could go to the area. I know that her trip helped a great deal to bring these matters to the notice of the British people, who indeed have been generous. Nothing that the hon. Lady was doing and saying was not being told to us through other channels.
I am well aware that it is easy to appear to be competitive on these occasions. I have no intention of taking up that position. The Iraqi refugees need all the help they can get. We, the British people, will give all we can, and the Government will put in more resources. What I have said today I described as initial and immediate. We cannot deliver immediately without preparing for that delivery. That became clear to me as I worked with the experts over the past 10 days to try to make the whole system more efficient.
May I say for the umpteenth time that I have never linked the questions of aid and the hostages, although many newspapers sought to link the two. I have always said that help to the Iraqi refugees is quite separate and quite different from any of our bilateral considerations. However, I would have been severely criticised had I gone to Tehran, the first British Minister to go there for 12 years, without having mentioned it. When I was asked, "Will you mention the subject of the hostages when you go to Iran?", of course the answer had to be yes.
Let us put some common sense into the matter and understand that, together with our partners throughout the world, we shall go on giving humanitarian aid to Iraqi refugees and we shall try to make the communications and co-ordination much better. At the same time, we shall work bilaterally to seek the release of innocent hostages.

Points of Order

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that I will be able to assist you and the House. As you know, there has been intense public speculation about and interest in the GCE O-levels of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, with the result that many hon. Members are being asked by the press to supply details of their O-level qualifications and school reports. For the record, I have a list of degrees as long as my arm, most of which were purchased very cheaply from the back pages of Private Eye, something which I would encourage the Prime Minister to do. Would it assist you, Mr. Speaker, if Members of Parliament now lodged copies of their GCE O-level certificates with the Registrar of Members' Interests so that any press inquiries can be speedily resolved by the registrar himself?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could log his four O-levels voluntarily.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order refers to this afternoon's questions. Is not it unseemly in the parliamentary sense, as well as being deeply offensive, for a Minister responsible for shipping to claim that more fishermen are lost at sea under a Labour Administration than under a Tory Administration?

Mr. Speaker: This is a continuation of Question Time. I am not responsible for answers that are given at the Dispatch Box.

Statutory Instruments &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the three motions on statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Fisheries (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Funeral Industry

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I beg to move,
That this House considers there is a need for an investigation into prices and practices of the funeral industry with a view to seeking to provide a Bill to establish a funeral industry registration council and to give that council powers and functions for the regulation of firms and individuals offering funeral services and arrangements; to provide the council with powers and functions to ensure that persons employed as funeral directors shall be trained and qualified to approved levels and to require the registration of all firms and persons providing funeral services with the council; to impose requirements upon such firms and persons; to make provision for the adequate training of persons employed as funeral directors; to make provision for a code of conduct under which all such firms and persons shall provide their funeral services and to ensure a satisfactory level of consumer protection for these services; to define offences under this code of conduct and specified penalties; and to make provision for other related matters.
Several hon. Members were intrigued when they learned that it was my intention to table a motion about the funeral industry. On three or four occasions, over three or four years, I have called in this Chamber for an inquiry into the prices and practices of the industry. In 1989, I secured an Adjournment debate, in which I dealt in detail with a report issued by the Office of Fair Trading. I dealt with some of the unpalatable experiences that several of my constituents had endured. These related both to price and to treatment.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is it envisaged that the funeral industry registration council to which the motion refers would cover the whole United Kingdom, or would it be restricted to England and Wales? Over the years, I have received many complaints about the high cost of funerals in Scotland and about related matters.

Mr. Cunliffe: If the motion were accepted, and a registration council were set up, I should like it to embrace all four countries in the United Kingdom.
I referred to the Adjournment debate on this subject in 1989. In view of the time constraints, one is restricted in one's comments in such a debate. Indeed, the convention is that the time is shared equally between the Member raising the subject and the Minister replying.
For me, this whole matter started in 1977 or 1978, when a constituent wrote to me following the deaths, first, of her father and then, within a matter of months, of her mother. The services required in the case of the second funeral were exactly the same as those required in the case of the first, but, to this lady's amazement, there was a price difference of £108. To some people, funerals are extremely expensive, and this lady was rather distressed, as she was not in employment.
In the first instance, my constituent contacted the company involved. She was told that, between the dates of the two funerals, the original firm had been taken over by a larger company, and that that company had laid down certain guidelines about standards and profit margins. When I examined the two accounts, I discovered that the £108 was accounted for by an increase in coffin price and an increase in what are known as professional charges. That is something to which I shall refer in considerable detail later.
I wrote to the company.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: What is the name of the company?

Mr. Cunliffe: I shall give the name later. In fact, since the takeover, the name has changed. The firm is now owned by a multinational company. Later, I shall refer in great detail to it and to other companies. When I wrote a letter to that company, I received a reply similar to that sent to my constituent, but I was pleased that it included a £100 refund.
Within a matter of weeks, there was a similar incident involving another firm of undertakers in my constituency. When I wrote to that company, I received almost the identical reply that I got from the first, and another £100 rebate for the constituent concerned. I began to think that, if the profit margins were so high that companies could make rebates of that size every time they received a formal inquiry into the cost of a particular funeral, those margins needed investigation.
In my research, I discovered that there had been a gradual takeover of many traditional, independent funeral directors in the north by large companies. As costs were also rising rapidly, I sought an Adjournment debate, which coincided with the publication of a report by the Director General of Fair Trading, which had some startling things to say about certain practices and establishments, and about a tendency to create monopolies.
There was also a 30-question survey of about 900 people who had recent experience of dealing with funeral directors. At that time, the National Association of Funeral Directors operated a voluntary code of practice, which made for greater clarity in respect of estimates, the type of funeral, and the services to be provided—a hearse or limousine, embalming, and so on—in ensuring a reasonably simple and dignified funeral. According to the OFT investigation, that code of practice was being honoured by only 25 per cent. of funeral directors.
Dying is a taboo subject which touches people's sensitivities and emotions. The job of the funeral director is one which requires superb diplomacy, and there is a natural reluctance to delve too deeply into the question of cost at the time that a funeral is being arranged.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Did that survey make the point, in respect of advice being sought by any individual, including even a distant relative, that the person who makes the initial contact with the funeral director is liable for the cost at the end of the day?

Mr. Cunliffe: I have no knowledge that that is the case, and it was not covered by the investigation that I mentioned.

Mr. Simon Burns: Does the hon. Member for Leigh have any evidence that the percentage of funeral directors abiding by the code of conduct has increased from 25 per cent. since 1989, or has it remained static?

Mr. Cunliffe: The National Association of Funeral Directors represents a respected and honourable profession, and I shall refer to it in due course. I shall also give more figures later, but there has been some response to the inquiry's findings in respect of that earlier code of conduct. I shall quote also the new code of conduct that was adopted in May 1990.

Mr. John Bowis: The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the need to maintain high standards of service—I am entirely with him on that—and competition if those high standards are to be achieved. Will he comment on the increasing practice in some parts of the country, whereby local authorities make a monopolistic municipal deal with one funeral director? The intention might be to provide a lower-cost service, but it will be subsidised by the community charge payer. Might not that ultimately harm competition and the protection available to the members of a community, if it results in fewer companies and less choice?

Mr. Cunliffe: Municipal authorities are not allowed to own any form of funeral company. They are permitted only to provide a service, and it cannot be related to any element of the community charge under existing legislation—and I do not imagine that such a thing will be allowed in any future legislation.
There are approximately 650,000 funerals a year, but the number is declining, and I shall explain the reasons for that. There are about 2,500 funeral directors, with a total turnover of from £250 million to £270 million a year in direct funeral costs, and another £100 million to £120 million in ancillary services such as the provision of flowers, cards, the saying of masses, and so on. It is therefore a pretty big commercial operation. One does not like to associate commercialism with a distressing aspect of life, but that commercialism is a fact.
Why have large undertakings moved into the industry? Is it because they find certain aspects of it extremely profitable? That is a cause for concern.

Mr. Roger Knapman: The hon. Gentleman makes the point, as he did in his Adjournment debate in 1989, that the funeral industry is making excessive profits. Is not it interesting, however, that the Co-operative Wholesale Society recently saw fit to dispose of its undertaking business? In view of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, why should it have done so?

Mr. Cunliffe: In recent months, other large companies have decided to sell. The reason is all to do with investment and profit margins, and I do not exclude any organisation of whatever size and character from criticism—and in some cases compliments. I shall return to that issue.
In 1989, on average, the cost of funerals increased by 28 per cent. more than inflation and there was some harsh criticism, some people believed quite rightly, of the industry's performance. In fairness to all the organisations connected with the industry, I should say that such increases above the rate of inflation have not continued, although, in my view, funerals are generally overpriced.
I decided that if I intended to comment on or to criticise the industry, I had to carry out an inside investigation, which I did with the help of several researchers. I investigated the average cost of a manufacturer's coffin throughout the country compared with the amount charged by the funeral companies.
In the meantime, as there had been scathing criticism of the industry, I introduced the Funeral Industry Bill, a simple Bill which called for the establishment of a compulsory code of practice for funeral directors and the funeral industry. The Bill called for written estimates, for full price lists, for the code of practice to be prominently displayed and for details to be given of the cost of the


coffin and its fittings, the hearse, funeral cars, care and removal of the body, embalming costs and administrative charges.
Funeral directors are now developing public relations of a highly sophisticated standard. People now pay for their death on hire purchase and for pre-arranged funerals. Lovely velvet phrases such as "Dignity in Destiny" are being trotted out, and I shall deal with that issue.
My Bill sought to bring the questions that were being asked about the industry to the fore and to subject the abuses and practices within the industry to public scrutiny. That is also what I seek to do today.
In my Adjournment debate in 1989, I gave some simple illustrations. At Christmas of that year, I took the liberty of spending two days "on the tools" at a coffin manufacturers. I did an "A to Z" follow-through and I spent a couple of days working as an engineer at a factory that supplies coffins to some of the large companies that I shall describe later. I looked at the prices of coffins—invoiced, costed and supplied, giving the firm's name—which was very good of the coffin manufacturer. The problems that I mentioned earlier about profit margins were evident. I shall give the 1989 figures, but update them with those of other manufacturers to be fair to the industry.
I have some funeral bills with me—those that I mentioned earlier—and it appears that the average cost of the two main coffins that were being produced for cremation at that time were £18 for the cheapest and £27·50 for the dearest, depending on the grade. All the coffins were given names of splendour, such as "Queensbury" or "Richmond"—velvet titles are again attached to them. I was able to trace coffins through from the manufacturers to funeral companies involved, including those used by the constituents that I previously mentioned. I found that the average price charged by the funeral director for a £19·50 coffin was £154. I have the bills here.
Then I looked into the cost of dearer types of coffin. They range from the simple basic models that I have described to those made of solid oak. The average margin between the cost of production and supply, and the final price charged, was between 400 and 500 per cent. In some instances it was 1,000 and in one case it was 1,100 per cent. The profit margins are identifiable.
The more that I research the industry and the more letters that I receive, the more convinced I become that there can be only two areas where profits are down—the price of the coffin and the professional charges.
I decided that I might as well research the matter properly, and I went to work in two funeral parlours. I showed great respect, and I did a sort of apprenticeship by trying out embalming for about four hours—although not on a real body—which was quite interesting. These are the facts of life. It is "feet on the ground" not feet in the ground.
I also assembled coffins, putting on the handles and the nameplates and, as an ex-engineer, I used time and motion studies to prove how long it took and how it was done, whether by high technology or manually, using a screwdriver or a hammer.
Then I decided to look into professional charges. I was investigating two small independent undertakers and I

asked what the professional charges embraced. Embalming was a separate charge and was an extra £25 or in some cases £40. I asked the companies to give me a professional charge that was generous to themselves and was not the minimum price. They told me that on average they charged for 10 hours' worth of professional charges, which would give them reasonable profit margins.
However, one of the takeover companies has a standard professional charge based on 40 hours per funeral, which is roughly £350, although it depends on the region, as there are large regional differences in the prices of funerals. During debates on the radio and on television, the companies stuck to that figure, and they have done so again during the past few days. We have substantiated that matter within the industry.
I shall read some of the letters that I have had from funeral directors with 30 and 40 years' experience, who have had doubts and they relate evidence that I suggest is conclusive that such professional charges are a direct rip-off, as are coffin charges.
Disbursements are a separate matter and include the vicar's charges, church services, and gratuities. No one is arguing about the cost of those.
Let me quote the up-to-date figures. I have received strictly confidential information giving the names of 19 firms that operate throughout the country under one name, UKF. It is not a large company, but it has taken over 19 firms. I shall mention larger firms later. I am referring to 1990 prices. I have ignored the 16 per cent. increase in the price of coffins on 1 September 1990. A Chester coffin, supplied for £33·12, costs £170 to £200. The Norwich coffin, supplied for £60, costs £330 to £350.
The firms point out, however, that the accessories must not be forgotten. Metal handles cost £8·54 per set, but a charge of £42 is made for them. Nameplates can be supplied in plastic or metal. Plastic nameplates cost 69p. If all those costs are added up, they amount to only a reasonable £55, but the funeral charge totals £615. I asked the firms involved, and they did not try to hide the charges. One United Kingdom company has a published turnover of £2·5 million and profits of £500,000. It does not deny those figures.

Mr. Ashton: I understand that the latest figures supplied by Hodgson Holdings, the biggest entrepreneur in the business, show that its predicted profit will be £5·3million on a turnover of £30 million. Has my hon. Friend had any dealings with that firm?

Mr. Cunliffe: I have had many dealings with it, especially with its previous chief executive. After a brilliant entrepreneurial career, unfortunately he has recently left the company. Far be it from me to speculate about the reasons; I do not know. However, I admire the entrepreneurial skill with which the company that my hon. Friend mentioned was built up. Its turnover increased from £14,000 to about £78 million.
The industry is contracting. The reason is that people are living longer. During the next few years, the annual number of people who die—at present 650,000—will come down to about 600,000. That leads to other problems, including the money that will have to be found for the care of the elderly. As a compassionate nation, however, we ought to be prepared to meet the challenge.
According to the Royal College of Nursing, the startling fact is that in 1985 there were 2,416,000 women


over the age of 75 and that by the year 2001, which is not that far away, that number will have increased to 2,802,560—a 16 per cent. increase. In 1985, there were 525,000 women over the age of 85. By the year 2001, there will be 840,000, a staggering increase of 60 per cent.
In 1985, there were 1,202,000 men over the age of 75. By the year 2001, that figure will have increased to 1,598,660—a 33 per cent. increase. In 1985, there were 158,000 men over the age of 85. By 2001, that figure will have increased to 321,900—a 110 per cent. increase. One does not need to be a great mathematician to realise, having studied those figures, that the industry is contracting. Most of us welcome that fact.
I have received many letters about funeral company takeovers. There has been a tremendous reduction in the number of independent funeral directors. In the past, one did not shop around for the best price funerals. Automatically one went to the local undertaker who had been used by the family for generations. Hundreds of them have disappeared in recent years. At a private meeting with the chief executive of Hodgson Holdings, Howard Hodgson, I asked him, "How on earth can you reconcile the increased demand for your services with your masquerade of using the name of local family undertakers? The many letters that I have received prove it."

Mr. Ashton: Is not it a fact that Mr. Hodgson has said that, when he buys companies, he buys their good will, not their assets? The good will is the name over the shop, and that is what he pays for. My hon. Friend is right about that being a form of deception about the service required.

Mr. Cunliffe: My hon. Friend is right. Good will is attached to the name of small family undertakers. I discussed the problem with Mr. Hodgson. These large companies are employing high-profile publicity methods. Actors and acresses are used, including Sir Harry Secombe, who sings on some of the tapes. Incidentally, that firm is no longer called Hodgson Holdings but PHK International, and it has a French chairman. It has cornered 15 to 16 per cent. of the market. Another company has cornered 25 per cent. of the 650,000 deaths each year. Just a handful of companies control the market.
I was impressed by Mr. Hodgson, a young entrepreneur. When I spoke for the first time in the House in a debate on industry—this was in 1979—the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told me that the Government's policies would lead to a galaxy of entrepreneurs, the like of which had never before been seen in this country. I do not think that at that time we envisaged that the growth industry would be the funeral industry. However, this young man moved into it and did a remarkable job by turning Hodgson Holdings into a highly professional company which, as I have already said, has now been taken over.
Having absorbed hundreds of local undertakers, the companies have created a problem. I illustrate that point with a letter that I received:
From the Manchester Evening News … I see that you are to raise a question in the House with regard to big companies making "take-overs" in the funeral business and to the large price increases which stem from this. I applaud you in this endeavour because I have personally experienced unease in these methods. I have been engaged in the funeral business on my own account for the last 36 years at least and have attained our professional qualifications of Dip. F.D. and am a member of the BIFD"—
not the National Association of Funeral Directors—

In 1974 I formed by own limited company in my own name but as I neared retirement age, I decided to sell my share capital"—
to a firm that I shall not name. Again, it was a local firm hiding under the aegis of a big company, which is Hodgson Holdings.
The letter continues:
However in 1986 I was to discover that
the company
had been taken over by Hodgsons Holdings of Birmingham and that my consultancy was included but only as far as the Employees Protection Act allowed. Very quickly after take-over I came to realise that I simply could not accept their methods or standards … I refused to sign my acceptance of the terms of contract being offered to me and resigned the consultancy as soon as was possible.
I find it hard to accept that having sold a limited company a 2nd time buyer can trade in my name"—
which illustrates the point that I am trying to make—
but not continue in the style of limited company … I feel most strongly that the professionalism that can be reasonably expected is now being rapidly eroded"—
the professionalism and standards of our funeral directors—
I also consider that there is a further danger in that the professional bodies which were formed to uphold the principles".
I put that issue to the National Association of Funeral Directors. The letter continues that to a great extent that body is being
membered and officered by servants of these same big companies.
I have had a great deal of experience in such matters. Just recently, I have dealt with some television programmes and people who were supposed to represent the associations but who, at the end of the day, were playing the company men. That is understandable. Hundreds of funeral directors have been taken over, but what happens then? They face conflicting loyalties—the companies or their profession. The honourable conduct of their profession is challenged by profit motives and margins. People are subject to pressures about their beliefs and qualifications for this honourable profession.
I challenge the NAFD: "Are you company men first and directors of your association second?" That is the issue with which we must deal. On every programme on which I have appeared during the past three or four years, people have said that they represented the NAFD but basically, they put the companies' view. They spoke for about 40 hours about the price of funerals. I am trying to make the profession—the industry—first class and honourable, to dignify it and to give it status in the form of registration. At the moment, anyone can be a funeral director.
The NAFD must make up its mind. Why does it oppose compulsory codes of conduct, but want a compulsory form of registration for funeral directors, for companies and for training? It cannot have it both ways, and that is the problem. The more independent funeral directors that are taken over by the big battalions, the greater will be the conflict of loyalties. That is one of the problems that must be endured. Unless we do something, the problem will accelerate and the industry will be treated with contempt.

Mr. Bowis: I should like to clarify—for my sake and perhaps for that of the House—the point that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) is making. He spoke about trying to maintain professionalism and good practice when small companies are taken over. I entirely agree, but a few minutes ago—when he quoted the letter—he implied that, when a small company continued under


its old name despite a change of ownership, something misleading—if not dishonest—occurred. If that is what he is saying, there is a principle that crosses professions, including bankers. For example, there is no longer a Mr. Coutts at Coutts and Co. and the same is true of soap powders, bookshops and Fox's glacier mints. Fox's was taken over by Rowntree, which was taken over by Mackintosh. The change of name is not important, but, as the hon. Gentleman is rightly saying now, it is important that the standard of service continues irrespective of ownership.

Mr. Cunliffe: I shall reply to that question by repeating what I said to Howard Hodgson: "If you want a Rolls-Royce or Marks and Spencer image, why do you still retain the identity of the village undertaker? If you seek to raise the standards of professionalism and commercialism, why do you do that?" There is no answer. With respect, one would not suggest that, because bookmakers have lifted themselves up, we should all make lords of bookmakers.
There is no reason for companies to be so secretive. The public will understand and they would prefer an honest description of the undertaking with which they enter into a contract to the faceless men in boardrooms—not just in this country. I shall speak later about some foreign companies that are buying their way into our industry.
I received a second letter from an established funeral director, in which he said that he was pleased with my stance on the funeral profession on a television programme. He wrote:
I was a Funeral Director for 30 years until March 1988 and very proud of my calling but not any longer. My company was purchased by Hodgson Holding's plc in March 1988. This, I strongly add, was not with my blessing but back stabbing in the Board Room allowed this.
That is as good a way to put it as any other. The letter continues:
In 1987 and 1988 I envisaged that if the trend of takeovers was to carry on the Funeral Profession would finish up being owned by large multiple monopolies and the bereaved families when they were at their lowest ebb could only finish up getting not as good personal service and higher charges. The matter was reported to the Monopolies and Fair Trading Commissions by myself
but nothing came of it.
The writer goes on to say that he worked in the private trade. He says that he is not of my political complexion or disposition. He states that there is massive exploitation of employees, but, because of his contractual restrictions, he cannot say much more. What he does say is too much because of the restrictions placed on him. He wrote:
I wish I could say more but … free speech is not allowed.
I would not go as far as that, but he states that it is far better that he does not write in detail about the companies under his control that were taken from him.
He submitted pages from the Merseyside telephone directory, which have been ticked to show every company that has been taken over. There are 18 companies in that region. About 14,000 funerals a year are carried out in Manchester and Liverpool. The service is fairly typical, although it is cheaper than in some other regions. The companies bear witness to the points about which we have been talking.
Municipalisation is another relevant factor. What do authorities seek in providing a funeral service? The first intention is to provide a reasonably costed and dignified funeral service. A quotation is provided containing the full cost, including, importantly, disbursements prior to the funeral. Most companies separate the two costs. Funeral directors cannot negotiate disbursements because they are fixed. That is a fair comment. The service has to be a full service with the basic trimmings and with no corners cut. Everything must be managed with dignity and the service should be indistinguishable from any other funeral service. The funeral service must always benefit the residents within the local authority area, in terms of the service itself and in terms of a possible increase in the number of cremations carried out in council crematoria. Are the criteria met?
I advised two authorities on the municipal provision of funeral services. The services that we negotiated are described as follows:
I feel that without a doubt a 'reasonably priced, dignified' funeral has been provided and all the costs are known before a funeral takes place, thus providing some protection for consumers when at their most vulnerable. Criteria two, I feel also has been met in that a full service is provided to a very high specification".
I have compared the service with that provided by private suppliers, from the manufacture of coffins, through all the elements to the funeral service itself. All that has been thoroughly examined. The municipal services are equally good. No problems are attached and there is more direct control even than that of a funeral director in a private company.
The costs are well known. We have provided protection for the consumer and the services have been personally vetted on a random basis. The service is not distinguishable in any shape or form from other funerals. To date, there has been no adverse comment. I put that point to the National Association of Funeral Directors which mainly defends the large companies. How can it reconcile the fact that some of the large companies are now putting in tenders to provide municipal funeral services, with all the elements of the simple basic funeral about which I have talked, at roughly £350 to £400? They are the companies that, when not providing the municipal funeral service, charge about £800 to £900. They are the same firms. Are they short of work, or are they undercutting because there is a bit of a recession? What is happening? For many years, I served on the Bolton metropolitan authority. It provides a funeral service at £375, with disbursements included. Wigan provides such a service, with qualified people from the National Association of Funeral Directors.
There is a need to examine the matter in some detail —and I should prefer a Select Committee to do that—to lift the lid off the industry in every facet and to give evidence on it. If the NAFD or the big boys in the association gave open evidence, it would be subject to scrutiny by the House and by the public. What has the association got to lose by that?
I want to quote the classic example of Hodgson Holdings. I must be fair and say that it is not the only big battalion in the industry. There are Greggs, Chosen Heritage and Quartz, among others. Two of those companies comprise 35 to 40 per cent. of the industry now. The more mergers that take place between the companies, the bigger the potential for monopoly takeovers which will create an even worse position in terms of artificial prices.
I do not accuse the companies of that at this stage, but I refer to the words of Howard Hodgson. He said that Hodgson Holdings now had 11 per cent. of the industry and was moving into the range of 15 per cent. He hoped that it would climb to 25 per cent. I do not believe that the aim of 25 per cent. being controlled by one company and 25 per cent. by another will be achieved, but that has been said clearly by the heads of the companies that I have mentioned. I make no comment on what happened to the person about whom I have spoken, because he has since left.
The aims of the Bolton municipal service are clear:
The scheme provides a dignified funeral service at a reasonable cost … The collection of the deceased from within the borough or within a 10 mile radius of the borough boundary.
That is fair comment. We should not like subsidies to other authorities which could be used to subsidise other features. That service also includes
Embalming., dressing and a place at the funeral undertakers' Chapel of Rest. Free conveyance to the Chapel of Rest for relatives with transport difficulties. All arrangements at the crematorium or cemetery. A hearse and following limousine. A second hearse as floral car. The Funeral Service. An oak veneer coffin".
On the figures that I have supplied, an oak veneer coffin alone can cost £590 from private suppliers. The service also includes fees charged by the doctor. One company charges an average of £42·50, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) knows. The service also includes a clergyman and the crematorium. The list of services continues:
Transport of deceased to church or chapel prior to disposal.
The figure for all that last year was £366.
The National Association of Funeral Directors believed that it was unfairly criticised by the Office of Fair Trading. It has replied on many points, and I acclaim the fact that it has drawn up a substantial, important and dignified code of conduct. Hodgson Holdings wrote to me that it agreed with the Bill that I proposed on a code of conduct. The National Association of Funeral Directors said that it agreed, as did the big companies and the trade unions. Yet there is some opposition to the compulsory registration of the code of practice. I do not understand the logic of that.
We must consider how other elements in the industry react to any form of criticism. Their reaction is understandable. Although we as politicians are usually calm and meek, we become all prickles, like hedgehogs, when we are criticised. I understand that.
I am convinced, and I want the Department of Trade and Industry to understand, that there is cause for concern and a need for a genuine examination of the industry. Certain matters have still not been resolved. I hope that the Minister will give me some assurances and possibly undertakings, as the previous Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs did when I last debated the matter. The previous Minister promised that there would be immediate and urgent talks with the industry and the National Association of Funeral Directors. I hope that the Minister will have something positive to offer at the end of this debate to me and to other hon. Members who may speak in the debate.
I return to the report. It says that the code can have value only if it is demonstrably taken seriously and complied with. It also says:

The Office is disturbed and disappointed by the survey's findings that, to a significant extent, the key requirements of the code—those relating to price lists, written estimates and the basic simple funeral—are not being observed.
I venture to say that there has been a vast improvement, and I commend those in the industry who brought it about. It was brought about mainly by the association through the high standards in its code of practice. I pay fair tribute to that improvement, and rightly so. However, there is room for further improvement. The registration, licensing and regulation of funeral directors and companies will help to make them far more professional and raise the standards and values that we attach to the industry. That is what the Office of Fair Trading sought to do and what some of us seek to do.
The report says:
Compliance with the obligation to explain the types of funeral on offer is somewhat better,"—
we concede that—
but still not as good as the Office would like.… Moreover, the performance of NAFD members in most of these respects is not conspicuously better that that of non-members … some funeral directors do not believe that the principles which the Office, and the Price Commission before it, have sought to establish in the industry are relevant to the way in which they do business.
That is regrettable. I cannot understand a profession that is reluctant to lift its standards and values. However, the report said:
the Office would not want to see the code dismissed as worthless. Implementation of the recommendations aimed at improving the code ought to encourage efforts to secure greater compliance. More generally, therefore, the Office's final recommendation is that the NAFD should indicate, within six months of this report, what specific steps it proposes to take in order to achieve greater compliance with the code.
I am glad to say that the NAFD has made tremendous progress. I hope that the Minister will dot the i's and cross the t's. I applaud the association and acclaim its success. Nothing that we say in this debate in any sense invalidates the fairly good reputation of 95 per cent. of our funeral directors. I do not seek, and nor would the House seek, to distort the image that they have successfully built up.
My motion asks the Minister whether more formal intervention is needed. The report said:
More formal intervention may, however, be needed if the efforts of the NAFD and of individual funeral directors do not lead to visible improvements in the operation of this market. In that event, the Office would want to review the options under existing or new legislation.
That was said not by me but by the OFT, which the House has set up to defend consumer interests. This is the will of Parliament. The report said that in the event of a lack of visible improvements, it might have to consider referring the industry to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We are moving rapidly in that direction. The only thing that will stop it is a decline in the industry due to a contraction of the number of funerals. However, the House should remember that, if the big battalions remain, the number of funerals is smaller and large companies increase their share of the market, they will creep nearer and nearer the notorious 25 per cent. of the market, when the MMC has to say halt. As some people will remember, that happened to one great funeral organisation in the United Kingdom.
I am sorry that the National Association of Funeral Directors treated the making of an order as a threat. It


wrote to me on the subject. I am not exactly accountable to the Director General of Fair Trading and nor is he to us. The OFT report said:
Another more specific and immediate possibility might be the making of a price marking order under section 4 of the Prices Act 1974 as amended. Such an order can be made to require charges for specific services to be indicated and may stipulate the manner in which any charge should be indicated.
That is a serious step to take.
The previous president of the association wrote to me last year on the matter. The association produced a new code in May 1990, which I commend to the House, entitled "The Role of the Funeral Director". It is a splendid document. It could do with having the i's dotted and the t's crossed—not by compulsion but voluntarily—but it is a step in the right direction. Mr. John Lodge, the national president of the NAFD wrote:
Dear Mr. Cunliffe,
I am grateful for the interest and support that we have had from you and your fellow MPs following the publication of our report 'The Role of the Funeral Director' which I sent to you in February.
Parliamentary pressure"—
that is us to them, and rightly so—
has been considerable and the Director General of Fair Trading has felt obliged to publish a long and detailed defence on the OFT's handling of its report on funerals.
The OFT has been put on the defensive.
I am sorry to tell you, however, that it looks as though the OFT is trying to penalise our Association for daring to criticise its report by seeking a Price Marking Order against our members. We have just negotiated our new Code of Practice with the OFT and the possibility of a Price Marking Order has only ever been mentioned as a means of ensuring cooperative negotiations. We cooperated fully as we have always done. So why is the OFT applying for an Order now? Surely we are entitled to write to you and our other MPs without risking sanctions for doing so?
I take the point. The association has the right to make representations to us. Mr. Lodge continues:
I enclose a copy of the new Code of Practice which is being published this week. Its predecessor was the only registered Code to have run its full ten years without need of review.
According to the Office of Fair Trading, it was not necessary to review the code when 75 per cent. of it was not honoured until inquiries were made and estimates sought for the survey.
The letter continues:
We have always cooperated with Government agencies and this new Code is a product of such cooperation. In return we have been the victim of a damaging and unfairly compiled report. The Director General's long defence of his Office's conduct still leaves some major questions unanswered. Three of the more important are
Why was the publication of the report not delayed until the survey data on which it was based was available? Why were damaging allegations made on the basis of uncorroborated evidence? Why did the OFT issue such a sensational press release?
Far be it from me at this stage to comment on that. I assume that those remarks have been put in writing to the Director-General of Fair Trading. I am confident that he will have replied, as Government agencies usually do, in technical, civil service gobbledegook, plus a few facts. I applaud that.
Recently, a journalist wrote about the regional disparities in the price of funerals, and mentioned a recent survey carried out by an independent body, the Odd

Fellows Manchester Unity friendly society. The survey was conducted in February, so is up to date. The newspaper report states:
Burial costs in the North West are among the cheapest in the country.
Local funeral directors are charging an average of £864 for a burial complete with extras such as cars, plot fees, and obituaries.
That compares with bills of up to £990 in towns in the South West.
I do not know where the difference lies or how the figures are broken down. Why are there such vast regional disparities when the big firms in the industry and independent ones that are trying to establish their reputation are competing on price?
The report continues:
Cremation costs are also lower in the region-the average all-in cost being £656.
The survey points out that, although the average basic funeral cost is £548, the cost including cremation is £574. The survey returns to the problem of funeral bills segregating disbursements from the cost of the funeral and professional charges. The report states:
basic costs bear 'little relation' to the final bill to which disbursements have to be added—£345 in the case of burials and £152 for cremations.
As a plug, it continued:
Leigh MP Lawrence Cunliffe, who has campaigned for years to cut the cost of funerals, welcomed the … survey.
Mr. Cunliffe said funeral directors in the North West had been forced to be more competitive as a result of his recent campaign.
That is a trivial point. I put it fairly and squarely to the House that the upturns and downturns in the industry and the price disparities are irreconcilable. Something must be wrong. We must act to restore some form of public confidence in the industry.
Great, distinguished public relations campaigns are taking place. It is now assumed, with some good reason, that the prices of funerals which are escalating more rapidly in some parts than in others, are a cause of public concern and need public scrutiny. There is something in that.
It now seems that hire purchase systems are being introduced into the funeral industry. Large companies are involved in public relations exercises. There is even a pack for Westminster people—for us—to pay for our funerals well in advance of our demise. The splendidly packaged HP system lists questions which may occur, such as why one's family should be faced with substantial amounts of funeral debts and bills; and suggests making provision by paying on a regular basis into a "Dignity in Destiny" scheme. The glossy package is entitled "Dignity in Destiny" and provides:
A Pre-arranged Funeral Plan with Price and Service Guarantee".
The slow but sure and methodical Americanisation of our industry is conditioning us to believe that we have a responsibility not to burden our relatives even in death.
The glossy brochure incorporates "The Westminster Plan" and "The Windsor Plan". What do they ensure? They offer a guaranteed price for the funeral of one's choice. Relatives will not be faced with additional, unexpected bills, no matter how high costs rise. They guarantee the quality of the service—something which we should all like to establish once and for all. Payments can be made in a single lump sum or can be spread in instalments. They guarantee to observe one's wishes regarding funeral arrangements. They offer free advice and trained counsellors. One can join a plan at any age without


a medical examination—someone is on to a good wicket there. I am not suggesting that one would want to take advantage of that, but it has some attraction.

Mr. Ashton: Is my hon. Friend aware that newspapers and Age Concern have analysed some of those schemes which have been found to pay as little as 1 per cent. interest on the money invested which is repaid at the time of the funeral?

Mr. Cunliffe: I have sought some financial advice on this, although I am not a steward of the industry. One funeral director of a large company, who has a prominent position in the region, wrote to me off the record and asked me not to repeat that people would do far better by putting their money into a building society account or a long-term national savings certificate.

Mr. Burns: Can the hon. Gentleman elaborate a little on what happens if an individual tragically dies before completing all the instalments? Is there a built-in insurance policy within the instalments paid to take account of that, or would the relatives of the deceased face a problem if they did not complete the instalments?

Mr. Cunliffe: There is a partial commitment to honour a high percentage of the funeral costs, but there is always, as in hire purchase agreements, a clause at the bottom of the page. There are about five schemes. Some firms say that the costs are not fully covered under the insurance, and there is some controversy about whether a company should offer 100 per cent. protection.
Such schemes condition people's minds—politicians can be accused of that. It is a bit like the conflicting loyalty between the funeral director and his company. When I was telling my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the debate, he said, "It's like being a shop steward. You prove that you are a first-class guy and the next thing the company wants to make you a manager and you change sides." I said that that happens to politicians, too. He said, "That's my mate Dr. Death. He ought to be the Minister of Funerals as he has changed parties twice and perhaps will a third time." I said that that was rather uncharitable. Most politicians have scruples about their party, and we all have the right, as does a funeral director, to change.
Other hon. Members wish to contribute to this serious and possibly controversial debate. I shall therefore conclude by saying that I agree with some of the points made by the National Association of Funeral Directors. It has met at least part of the challenge. I shall do it the honour of referring to its wonderful booklet in which it speaks of the emotional support and the expert advice that it gives in practical services to the industry. It has no doubt tried to gild the lily by its recommendations and standards, but it has met the challenge voluntarily.
The debate involves a sensitive subject and it is important to end with a quote from William Ewart Gladstone.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Gosh.

Mr. Cunliffe: The hon. Gentleman will understand the relationship between Gladstone and the new Minister for Funerals should that right hon. Gentleman enter the Conservative Cabinet. He has been in every party, so what is wrong with having a Liberal background? Gladstone said:

Show me the manner in which a nation cares for its dead and I will measure with mathematical exactness the tender sympathies of its people, their respect for the law of the land and their loyalty to high ideals.
I support that. The National Association of Funeral Directors is the great baron of the funeral industry. This country has always treated its deceased and bereaved with dignity. They have the right to our compassion and understanding at times of great sorrow.
Let us make an honest endeavour to introduce the standards and values that I have exhorted the industry to adopt. It is not imperative but, if necessary, the Government should put the industry on a regulated footing and demand the highest standards and values to secure the comfort that a great nation can offer when mourning its people.

Mr. Roger Knapman: The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) has spoken for an hour and twenty minutes criticising the National Association of Funeral Directors.

Dr. Hampson: With respect, my hon. Friend is wrong. The hon. Gentleman went on that long to stop me making a pertinent and poignant attack on the incompetence, inefficiencies, mismanagement and wastefulness of Labour councils. He went on speaking because the Labour party does not want the next motion, which I have tabled, to be debated.

Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend made that point well. The hon. Member for Leigh has decided views on the funeral industry, but what stuck in the craw was when the magic word "profit" came into the argument. I shall not detain the House for such a long time.
I have an interest in this debate, in that the coroner of Westminster is a namesake of mine, Dr. Paul Knapman. I am not sure whether he is a relative, but when I bought my son and myself two darkish coats—my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) has his desk next to mine—the secretaries in Old Palace yard called us the undertakers.
In Victorian times, sex was taboo—piano legs were covered, and so on—but death was regularly discussed, and it was not unusual for a family with five, six or eight children to expect to lose one or two of them. People were used to speaking about death. Now the roles seem to be reversed. Every publication seems obsessed with sex, but there is a taboo about death. The hon. Member for Leigh does the House a service by introducing this motion.
However, I am afraid that I must qualify those congratulations. I have read the motion and I like the first line and a bit:
To call attention to the need for registration of and a code of conduct for the funeral industry".
The next 14 lines refer to setting up councils, giving powers, and quangos. That can achieve only one thing —to strangle the industry concerned, if that is possible with the funeral industry, in a mass of red tape.
The hon. Gentleman has largely followed, but also elaborated on, the speech that he made in an Adjournment debate on 6 February 1989.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: It was an excellent speech.

Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman says that it was an excellent speech. That is why we have now heard it twice. I intend to read a passage from the reply of the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), so I fear that some people may shortly be bored to death. My hon. Friend said:
I would like to remind the House of the context of the OFT report. The Director General of Fair Trading has a duty under the Fair Trading Act 1973 to encourage associations to adopt codes of practice providing a standard which promotes and safeguards the interests of consumers. There are currently 26 such codes endorsed by the director general and they form a valuable part of the consumer protection framework. The Government are convinced that effective self-regulation is better than regulation.
I hope that the Government's position has not changed from that day to this and that the present Minister, my hon. Friend the member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) will make his usual high-calibre contribution to the debate and largely repeat those words.
For much of the time, the hon. Member for Leigh discussed costs. Again, my hon. Friend the Minister answered him briefly but adequately in the course of the Adjournment debate and said:
the funeral director has little control over the cost of disbursements included in his bill, funeral directors' own costs such as staff and equipment may have risen above the costs of inflation and the two OPCS surveys are not directly comparable."—
those are the two to which the hon. Gentleman referred—
Indeed, I did not read the OFT report as necessarily suggesting that funeral directors are overcharging".—[Official Report, 6 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 779.]

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has quoted a speech which, like me, he seems to know well. I am puzzled especially by the question of who controls the salaries and other staff costs if they are not controlled by the funeral directors. Ministers constantly tell us that businesses are responsible for their own staffing costs, but I suspect that that is a red herring.

Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand his hon. Friend's speech. He criticises the level of charges. I have never before heard an Opposition Member say that staff do not earn enough, so I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's conversion. He criticised the charges that those companies make. As the hon. Member for Leigh knows, because he has studied the matter in great depth, charges have gone up by 28 per cent. above the rate of inflation in the past 15 years——

Mr. Cunliffe: Twelve years.

Mr. Knapman: The hon. Gentleman says 12 years, but many industries must have a worse record than that.

Dr. Hampson: Being present by force majeure to try to introduce a motion that I am prevented from introducing enables me to reflect on some of the ideas that have been put before the House. Before I went to university I was brought up in the north-west, where everyone used the Co-operative funeral service. It has not been properly explained why, in this world which the Opposition regard as such a rip-off, the Co-operative Society could not make enough profits and has backed out of the funeral industry. The hon. Member for Leigh seemed to imply that he wanted to return to the highly regulated world that socialists always want, in which local authorities are

allowed to run funeral services. However, that would only compound the problem that I was trying to identify in my motion—the wastefulness and misuse of local authority power——

Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) has just walked into the Chamber, having been absent for long periods of the debate. He has tabled a second motion which we are unlikely to reach, and is deliberately trying to introduce the subject of that motion into this debate. Is that not contempt of the House?

Dr. Hampson: I apologise for introducing extraneous matters, but they were perfectly relevant.
The hon. Member for Leigh said that he regretted that local authorities did not have the powers to undertake funeral services. It seemed perfectly relevant, therefore, to say that it would be a wasteful exercise on the part of local authorities. We all know that the Opposition wish to prevent me from introducing my motion.

Mr. George Foulkes: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. It would be as well if we got on with the debate.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West has every right to be absent from the Chamber because he always ensures that his speeches—in this case, a speech that should have been heard by the House—are full of interest and carefully researched. Therefore, I am not surprised that he was unable to be present for the whole of this debate.
With his usual understanding of the subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West asked the same question that I asked the hon. Member for Leigh an hour and 10 minutes ago: if the funeral industry is such a licence to print money, why did the Co-operative Wholesale Society sell its interest in it?

Mr. Cunliffe: rose——

Mr. Foulkes: rose——

Mr. Knapman: I asked the hon. Member for Leigh an hour and 10 minutes ago why that should be so——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman giving way?

Mr. Knapman: I was about to give way to the hon. Member for Leigh, who introduced the subject into the debate.

Mr. Cunliffe: The explanation is simple and well known to the House. The Co-op owned more than the Monopolies and Mergers Commission criteria. It had 25 per cent. of the industry and was made to get rid of the House of Fraser, which Hodgson Holdings PHK—Kenyan Securities—bought immediately afterwards. It then added to that to create another monopoly, so it is swings and roundabouts—robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Mr. Knapman: I am—not unusually—slightly confused. Surely the Co-operative Wholesale Society did not have to sell its entire interest in the industry. Is the hon.


Gentleman saying that it did? He spent an hour and 20 minutes saying how wonderfully profitable the funeral industry is.

Mr. Cunliffe: I am trying to give the facts. I said that the Co-operative Wholesale Society was allowed to retain 25 per cent. of the industry. In this case, the surplus was the House of Fraser, which was immediately snapped up by another big company in the industry, the name of which I have already given.

Mr. Knapman: If the Co-operative Wholesale Society was allowed to keep 25 per cent., I presume that the whole thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument was against that society.

Mr. Foulkes: I can confirm that a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report obliged the CWS to divest itself of that power. Had the hon. Gentleman speeded up his speech and not allowed the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) to intervene, I might have had an opportunity to explain, as a Co-op Member, the position of the Co-op funeral services.

Mr. Knapman: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which suggested that the Co-operative Wholesale Society should not have more than 25 per cent. of that market.
In the course of the Adjournment debate on 6 February 1989, my hon. Friend the then Minister said:
The fact that during the past few years a number of small independent funeral directors' firms have been taken over—the hon. Gentleman stressed that development—is perhaps an indication that profit margins in some parts of the industry are low.
That is a far cry from the hon. Gentleman's argument. My hon. Friend the Minister concluded by saying:
It is going too far to say that the market is in any way overwhelmed or dominated by that small number of companies. I am confident that the Director General of Fair Trading will remain alert to what is happening in the market and be ready to take action if and when the need arises."—[Official Report, 6 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 780.]
The Director General of Fair Trading already has those powers. Although I like the first line and a half or the motion, I do not think much of the quangos suggested in the remainder. The Director General of Fair Trading has discretionary powers to refer abuses of monopoly and anti-competitive practices to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and that has happened.
It may be slightly ironic that the Commission investigated the Co-operative Wholesale Society's acquisition of the Scottish funeral businesses of House of Fraser plc in 1987 but, in view of what has been said, I had better not rake that up again.
The hon. Gentleman now has not one—that is the number of cases suggested in the 1989 Adjournment debate—but two causes of complaint. Some 90,000 people live in my constituency and I reckon that they will live for more than 70 years. I must admit that I sometimes speculate idly on whether the increased lifespan is because the national health service is so much more efficient than it used to be. The hon. Gentleman seems not to want to pay the Government that compliment—he apparently thinks that the increased lifespan is because people eat muesli for breakfast—but the average lifespan is certainly going up considerably.
Nevertheless, of that 90,000, every year some 1.200 families suffer bereavement and, if my arithmetic is

correct, in the past four years that I have represented Stroud, there have been some 5,000 deaths in my constituency. During that time, I have received no letters of complaint from those 5,000 families about the charges or activities of funeral directors. I wonder how many of my hon. Friends have received letters from their constituents complaining about that subject. It does not seem to be very much of a problem.
In 1989, the National Association of Funeral Directors published an Office of Fair Trading survey showing factors such as the amount paid compared with the expected cost of a funeral and knowledge of funeral costs. Some 75 per cent. of those questioned paid exactly what they expected to pay or less. A further 21 per cent. did not know—which I suppose means that the people did not reply.
In my postbag I receive many letters about whales, tropical forests, battery hens and nearly every other subject, but I have never received a letter about undertakers' charges. That is a credit to the industry, because funeral directors conduct their business at a time of considerable anxiety, not to say trauma, and it would be easy for them to upset customers if they did not provide a good service.
The other part of the hon. Gentleman's speech related essentially to whether there is sufficient quality of service and, if not, what should be done about it—whether we should have quangos and intervention. There have been surveys on this subject. In 1987, there was a survey of funeral arrangements. It was published in 1989, although whether before or after the Adjournment debate of the hon. Member for Leigh, I am not sure. It stated clearly that, of the 600,000-plus funerals in Britain every year, about 200 provoked complaints to trading standards officers. The survey showed that 72 per cent. were very satisfied, 25 per cent. were satisfied, 2 per cent. were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and only 1 per cent. were dissatisfied with the industry's activities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware of those statistics, as he did not mention them in his speech, although he had ample opportunity to do so. Using a massive sledgehammer to crack a nut, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, is not justified.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, when he was Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, had much to do with the privatisation of the water industry. I was always struck by his comment that one should have competition where that is possible and regulation where it is not. There is still considerable competition within the industry. One accepts that where there is not fair competition there should be regulation, but that should not mean legislation—there is already a considerable amount of legislation.
The hon. Member for Leigh could also have quoted from the Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Gordon Borrie. The hon. Gentleman did not say a great deal about Sir Gordon's views on the subject, but he has considerable responsibilities for it. Sir Gordon Borrie said:
People do not arrange funerals often enough to acquire the background knowledge which guides them when they make other major purchases, and they may be in no state of mind to make best use of such knowledge as they have. They do not approach the task of arranging a funeral as they would an ordinary consumer transaction, comparing the prices and services on offer and taking time to come to a decision.
That is perfectly fair, and I think that Opposition Members would certainly agree with it.
Sir Gordon Borrie said that, for those reasons, the Office of Fair Trading had supported consumer protection in the form of the code of practice of the National Association of Funeral Directors. The hon. Member for Leigh said that he was speaking voluntarily and thought that I might be speaking compulsorily. I have no interest to declare in the way that he might have been suggesting.
Sir Gordon Borrie continued:
I still support the code but I am disturbed by the evidence that it is not being adequately followed.
That is the crux of the matter. I am sure that the House would agree with that. Sir Gordon continued:
I am calling upon the Association to make a swift and positive response to the survey's findings. Otherwise I may have to consider what other options—such as an order under the Prices Act 1974 requiring the disclosure of prices—are available.
That is the important point, because I understand that, under the code of conduct, all prices should be made available, but in only 40 per cent. of cases was that proving to be the case. I think that all hon. Members will agree that that is not right and that the code of practice should be enforced. However, we surely do not need the huge, bureaucratic minefield into which the hon. Member for Leigh seeks to lead us in order to achieve that.
Who is to pay for all this? The hon. Member for Leigh had many lines about quangos and so on, but who will pay for the system? Will we hear the traditional Labour response, "Let the taxpayer pay," because nobody knows quite where the money goes? Or will it be the consumer who pays, by which I mean the executors of the deceased? If consumers are to pay, the hon. Gentleman's arrangement—despite all his talk about reducing the cost of funerals generally—will increase costs. That is the history of over-regulation throughout the ages.
I beg the House not to support the hon. Gentleman. We have an efficient and thriving industry. Certainly, if there are things wrong with it, the Office of Fair Trading must look into them, but we should not create an over-regulated, bureaucratic quagmire. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject the motion.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) made a magnificent, superb speech, based on his practical experience. He did the House a favour in moving the motion. He is simply asking that undertakers should give not only a menu but a menu with prices. What is wrong with that? As my hon. Friend said, the issue stems from the Prices Act 1974, which provided that pubs must display the prices of what they sell. Until 1974, they never did. If someone went into a pub, he did not know how much a pint of beer cost, and had to ask. The Labour Government said that all pubs and restaurants should display their prices on the wall. My hon. Friend is saying that the same should apply to undertakers. What is wrong with that? 
People buy this product—if one may call it that—or service once or twice in their life. They are not experts and cannot shop around. There is no way that they will have time, within two or three days, to ring the undertakers or go through Yellow Pages to see how much is charged. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh read out a list of disbursements: £60 for body removal, £25 for minister's fees, £100 for gravediggers' fees, up to £90 for the

cremation, £42 for medical certificates, £12 for the organist, £7 for heating the church and £100 for the flowers. Those are all included in the basic cost. People do not know the cost unless they ask, or are told after the funeral, and then the bill comes as a massive shock to poor people who are not versed in such matters.
The report of the Office of Fair Trading shows that, in Brighton, the average cost of a funeral can be £1,000, whereas in Oldham it is only £400. Why should there be such a difference for the same basic service in different parts of the country? The national average cost is £530, whereas it costs £1,000 in Brighton. I do not know what it costs in Stroud—I should like to know. It is totally wrong that people should have to pay such prices for what is basically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh described it, an MFI coffin used at the crematoriums, and pay perhaps £150 or £200 for something with a factory price of about £25. Enormous profits have been made in the industry. It is time that the Office of Fair Trading not merely produced a report but acted on it.
As my hon. Friend said, for many years in this country we had a mass of small firms trading on their good will and conducting perhaps 200 funerals a year—as few as four or five a week. That was why it was cost-inefficient. Small firms had to pay a lot for hearses, cars and embalming, and for their premises, but they would do perhaps only two hours work a day. When it was virtually a cottage industry, no one could reap an adequate return unless there were many deaths.
Then in came organisations such as Hodgson Holdings and took over the small businesses. Unlike firms such as Prontaprint and Sketchley the cleaners, such organisations do not offer franchises under their own name. They simply buy the old name. Then, instead of a car being used for two hours a day, it is used all day at five or six different premises. That makes the business much more efficient and profitable, but nobody knows that all these "small firms" are governed by the same company. At least the Co-op puts its name above its shops. When people go to the Co-op they know who owns it, but they think that the other firms are the same little family firms that buried their grandfathers. They are not. Charges can go up by £100 in six months because a firm has been taken over without anyone knowing.
I am sorry that a Department of Trade and Industry Minister is to reply to this debate. The Department of Social Security should reply. It has a great deal to answer for because it has not educated pensioners or families about what to do in these circumstances. The reports that have been mentioned are usually in the quality papers such as The Daily Telegraph and The Independent. The Sunand the Daily Mirror rarely investigate such matters. As people get older and become pensioners—probably even by the time they reach 50—they would probably be happy to receive Government leaflets giving advice about what to watch for and what questions to ask.
I have with me a letter which I received today from an elderly lady in Worksop, in my constituency. Her brother, who is 79 years of age, has had a stroke. Her sister is 83. None of them has been married, and they are not insured for funeral expenses. They are so confused that they cannot ask how to claim help, despite being on income support. The lady is a widow. Her husband was a miner for 46 years and served for six years in the war. Recently, the mining industry has been offering retired people lump sums to give up their coal allowances. People were warned


not to accept, because doing so would put them above the limit for benefits. That woman has taken £2,000 and given up her coal for the rest of her life, thinking that she has a nice little nest egg—but now she does not qualify for the grant from the DSS because she has £2,000 in the bank. Her husband worked digging coal for 46 years for that money, and a big chunk of it will go to pay funeral expenses. The lump sum also stops people qualifying for cold weather payments from the DSS.
The Minister will talk about free trade and the market economy. He will say that he will not interfere and set up a bureaucracy. But the Labour Government simply ordered pubs to put their prices on the wall. All we need is a similar measure under the same Act saying that undertakers have to do the same and display a price list with details of charges. People would have the right to see a list of prices, and could go to two or three undertakers collecting details of prices—perhaps in the form of leaflets. That is all that my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh is asking for. It would be a great service to many hard-up pensioners if such details were given in advice leaflets at every DSS office.
The industry is being taken over by firms that should operate on a franchise basis, and a great deal of profit is being made out of innocent people in their time of grief. It is up to the Government to protect pensioners and to act on behalf of consumers as well as on behalf of the free market.

Mr. George Foulkes: I wish that I could follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) with the same verve and eloquence. He is a Sheffield Wednesday supporter——

Mr. Ashton: Director.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is a director; I must not denigrate him. Clearly, he is buoyed up by the recent victory. I support Manchester United, as well as Heart of Midlothian, so I feel that a debate on funerals is appropriate for my sombre contribution.
There may be other reasons why people do not approach the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) with complaints. As joint chairman, with the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden), of the all-party pensioners group, I know that many members of that group have raised that important issue, and that we have had meetings with the National Association of Funeral Directors. Moreover, once a funeral is over, people may feel that it is not appropriate to write a letter of complaint to a Member of Parliament. The hon. Member for Stroud should not judge by his postbag. I assure him that the all-party pensioners group has received representations, which it has taken up with the National Association of Funeral Directors.
I used to work with Age Concern Scotland before I entered the House. That organisation, too, was worried about the matter and had received a number of complaints. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have been in the House for a long time, and will be able to confirm that old people and the relatives of people who have died are in a vulnerable position. They cannot haggle about prices. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) has said, at such a difficult time people cannot negotiate for the

best price. They cannot necessarily exercise the same judgment as they would when making another kind of purchase.
I speak as a Co-op-sponsored Member of Parliament. I freely declare my interest, which is on the Register of Members' Interests. Anyone who cares to read the record knows about that interest. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) here tonight. He, too, is sponsored by the Co-op and I know that he will associate himself with what I say.
The Co-op is one of the biggest undertakers in the country, if not the biggest, but that statement masks the fact that it is not a monolithic organisation. There is much misunderstanding about the structure of the Co-op movement. There is local control and much sympathetic understanding of the needs of consumers, especially elderly and, in this case, bereaved people.
About 30 of the 80 local Co-operative societies in the United Kingdom provide funeral services. The biggest provider is the CWS—the Co-operative Wholesale Society —which is very strong in Scotland and south Wales. It supplies funeral materials to other societies and runs coffin-making works in Manchester and Glasgow. There is also the CRS—Co-operative Retail Services—the biggest Co-operative funeral business in England. All the societies combine to offer a funeral pre-payment bond, which enables people to make provision for their funerals.
That is one example of the way in which the Co-operative movement not only sees people as customers but aims to provide them with a service. It thinks not in terms of profit but of providing a service to the members of the Co-operative movement. Similarly, the Co-operative college has helped the launch of the Bereavement Trust, which brings together social work professionals and funeral staff, who all help and counsel the bereaved.
The main worry of the Co-operative movement is the unlimited access to the profession. Cowboy operators are free to lower standards and to charge whatever prices they like. That emphasises what my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh said about the transparency of prices. The existence of cowboy operators is especially regrettable in a service in which reliability, sensitivity and integrity are expected by the public, as the families using the service may be unable or unwilling to exercise rigorous consumer choice. The Co-op therefore feels that more consumer protection is needed. The only way of achieving that is through a registration system that would allow only trained and reputable people and companies to offer this service. The industry would be represented on the registration council that the Co-op movement proposes. Rightly, there would be consumer and independent representatives.
The report of the Office of Fair Trading on the funeral industry found many causes for concern similar to those I have outlined which worry the Co-op. The OFT, with the National Association of Funeral Directors, has developed a voluntary code of conduct. Although the good faith of the association is not in doubt, many Co-op funeral departments are active members of the local NAFD branch but are worried that voluntary self-regulation will not work. The association will find it difficult to discipline or expel members who provide its subscription income. As the House would expect, many of the worst offenders—those who engage in bad practice and charge high prices —are not members of the association. Accordingly, they


are beyond the theoretical scope of the code. We want to give the association a fair wind, but we are sceptical about its success.
The Co-operative movement would like to see introduced a Bill—it has discussed it with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh because of his concern—that would go much further than the NAFD code in many respects. The main difference is that the movement believes that the protection of consumers must have the backing of us all.
The Government could help reputable funeral businesses to keep down their prices by introducing the zero-rating of VAT for all funeral services. At present, most funeral costs are exempt from VAT, which means that businesses cannot reclaim the VAT that is paid on their inputs. The Government are negotiating with the European Community on the harmonisation of VAT sales in the single market, and we support the progress that has been made now that the Community has accepted the principle of zero rating for social goods such as food.
We believe that funerals should be included in the list. It is a service that has to be used by everyone eventually. It is not a purchase that can be delayed or forgone, however much we might like it to be. Funeral arrangements take place at a time of financial uncertainty, and possibly financial stringency for those who have to pay. The increase in the rate of VAT that was announced in the Budget makes it all the more necessary to move to positive zero rating for funerals. I hope that the Minister will give a specific and positive answer to the suggestion that zero rating should be adopted.
We in the Cooperative movement are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh for all the work that he has done. We are pleased that he succeeded in obtaining a place in the ballot and thus was able to initiate a debate on the funeral business. We hope that the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to a matter of great concern for the Co-operative movement and for those of us who are members of the all-party pensioners group, which has discussed these matters on several occasions and on whose behalf I speak this evening. I hope that the Minister will recognise and respond to the eloquence of the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) for the force of the arguments that he deployed, for his well-informed contribution and for the long-term interest that he has taken in the subject, which means that he is one of the premier spokespersons on the funeral business in this place. I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) for his informed contribution to the debate. Similarly, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes).
We are used to death in the House. One took place fairly recently when a political career was killed off during the autumn as the result of a murder most foul and treacherous. There is more than a whiff of political morbidity coming from No. 10 Downing street at present. More than 600,000 deaths occur in Britain each year, and almost all require the services of a funeral director. The debate that we have today is nothing new. Funerals have

been seen as a burden on the poor for more than a century, and for more than 100 years people have used friendly societies, burial societies and industrial assurance companies to help them to meet the cost of funerals.
The majority of people working in the funeral business are well trained. They are competent, compassionate and professional. They take a pride in their work, which has an honourable and well-documented history going back over 3,000 years. It is right that they should be rewarded for their service. I welcome the acknowlegement of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh that he has witnessed an improvement in the performance of the trade. There are, however, no grounds for complacency.
In April 1976, the Labour Government's Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection asked the Price Commission to report on funeral charges and associated charges such as the cost of coffins, burials, cremations and the like. The commission's findings were that most people were not given written estimates. Only 70 per cent. were given oral estimates. Action was taken to introduce improvements and a code was produced in 1979. It is sad that, in the 1980s, the quality of information and service seemed to slip back in some sectors.
The 1979 code contained six simple provisions. It provided that practitioners in undertakers' businesses should keep their dealings with their clients confidential and that they should advise them on certification, registration of death and associated matters. The code stated that all clients should be given full information about the services offered and that they should be handed a price list or a leaflet setting out prices. It was set out in the code that those who offer funeral services should offer a basic, simple funeral if that was requested and required.
The code included the provision that clients should be given a written estimate to cover the charges and that the charges should not go beyond that estimate. It was stated that fair prices should be detailed and that clients should be provided with detailed accounts. These were simple recommendations. It is amazing that, after 12 years, not all the recommendations have been adopted by all practitioners in the funeral business.
The report of the Office of Fair Trading, which was published in July 1989, arose from complaints about non-compliance with the code and other matters that had been made by the general public. As we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House, costs increased by nearly 30 per cent. between 1975 and 1989. Apparently the cost of coffins and the level of professional charges increased beyond the rate of inflation. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh cited the example of the price of a £19 coffin increasing by as much as 1,000 per cent. Another, more luxurious, coffin—a coffin that will be requested by some—with a wholesale price of £60 increased to £350. My hon. Friend gave examples of handles costing up to £8 subsequently being charged at £42. He spoke of plastic nameplates increasing in price from 69p to £65. We support his contention that basic prices have increased and that the added value on basic products is considerably less than the price eventually charged.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh has given a new meaning to the letter RIP—not rest in peace but rip off, as prices soar. The report of the Office of Fair Trading focused on the code of practice of the NAFD, the key requirements of which were not being observed by members of the profession. The shortcomings were detailed. They included a failure to provide price lists, a


failure to supply written estimates to clients, and a deep-seated reluctance to provide all the details of a modest and basic funeral.
Last year, the NAFD published in its trade magazine the results of its own random inspections to check whether its members were complying with the code. Up to a year after the report of the OFT, half the inspections revealed that funeral directors were still failing to fulfil the code's requirements of price lists and written estimate forms.
Labour makes five key demands. The funeral code must be applied to all funeral directors, it must extend to cover pricing, and every customer and potential customer must be given a detailed breakdown of funeral costs. It is not satisfactory that a grieving relative should have to organise a funeral after someone has passed on. It is just as important that everyone should be able to make inquiries, irrespective of whether they require a funeral today, tomorrow or sometime in the future and get a price list from every funeral director.
That brings me to the excellent point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley about the registration and regulation of all practitioners. By simply registering practitioners, we would have an additional check that the best codes of practice and the highest professional standards were being adhered to. That additional check is necessary, and should be applied to all funeral directors.
We desire to drive out the bad practices, albeit in a small minority, which are prejudicing the standards of the best practitioners in the industry. We must ensure that a price-marking order is drafted in line with section 4 of the Prices Act 1974, to compel all funeral directors to display prices and to provide full itemised costs for all potential customers. It may not be necessary to enforce that measure, but the fact that it would be hanging over the tiny minority of unscrupulous practitioners would be a threat.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I should be most interested to know how many complaints the hon. Gentleman has had from his constituents about the affairs of funeral directors. Can he tell the House who would pay for the panoply of regulation he suggests, which is so typical of socialism?

Mr. Griffiths: We know that the hon. Gentleman is assiduous in speaking for the No Turning Back group. He acknowledges that freely, and the Minister also nods his assent. The hon. Gentleman is leaving the Minister short of time to wind up.
The facts are quite simple. The public is demanding regulation of the trade. I have a number of excellent practitioners of funeral services working with the Co-op and in the private sector in my constituency and I would not seek to malign them. I have received only one complaint in the past six months, but it was a serious complaint at a time when the individual concerned was in a great deal of emotional distress. My constituents will not welcome the account of today's proceedings and the barracking from Conservative Members. If I am pressed to name the individual who complained, I shall do so, having asked that person for permission.
I have been a Member of Parliament since 1987 since when I have received several complaints. Every Member of Parliament will be aware of problems in the funeral industry. It would be surprising and, frankly, astonishing if, given that there are 600,000 funerals each year every

hon. Member were not aware of one or two complaints. It is perhaps a tribute to Opposition Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh that their constituents are able to make their complaints known to them. I am not surprised that Conservative Members are shaking their heads and saying that they have no complaints.

Mr. Knapman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman had considered the matter so important, I am sure that he would have raised it in his speech.
We backed the Director General of Fair Trading when he spelled out what must be done. More formal intervention may well be needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh suggested that the matter should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I shall certainly welcome the Minister's response to that suggestion, as I do not believe that it can be ruled out.
I hope that the Minister will investigate the information that my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh gave the House about bids by private firms for municipal funeral services. It cannot be right that a bid of £350 a funeral for a council contract is being made by a company charging its customers double that in the private sector. Surely the Minister is not satisfied to let matters rest there. Surely he must investigate the unjustified price increases in identical funeral in less than month. More than £100 more is being charged for the same funeral.
In short, we need a more positive approach from the Government backing the Office of Fair Trading, supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and other hon. Members in their efforts to make the industry more accountable, and, most important of all, strengthening the rights of the relatives and friends of the 5 million United Kingdom citizens whose deaths will necessitate funerals in the next decade. We want the Minister to respond positively to those questions.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) has chosen a subject for debate which is of interest to all hon. Members. I am sure that the House will have listened with great interest to his comprehensive speech. I am sure that every one of us has had experience of losing loved ones. Often the bereaved feel vulnerable and unable to cope with the practical problems associated with death. They look for support and help and for someone to take over the responsibility of sorting out details and making arrangements.
The hon. Member for Leigh quoted Gladstone, and we all agree that how we treat our bereaved is a measure of the tender spirit of the land. The majority find the help and support from their funeral director adequate. Despite some of the comments made today, we should not forget that there is no evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with the industry. The report by the Director General of Fair Trading in January 1989 produced no such evidence.
As we have heard today, some 650,000 people die each year in the United Kingdom. Most of the associated funerals are arranged by funeral directors. In 1986, the last full year in which the Office of Fair Trading separately recorded complaints about funerals, there were only 126 complaints. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr.


Knapman) said that he had received no complaints from his constituents, although I accept that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) put a different interpretation on why there had been so few complaints.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in eight years a Member of Parliament, I have not had one complaint from my constituents? I can tell the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) that I have full surgeries. Sellmans, Stacey and John Short and Son in my constituency provide a splendid service, as I am sure the Co-op does—otherwise, I would have received complaints. Is my hon. Friend aware that companies such as John Short and Son produce a full price list, as the hon. Member for Leigh requested? Is it not correct to say that the Opposition want another panoply of controls for which the customer will ultimately pay?

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend makes his point most effectively. I shall take up one of the points he made.
Since becoming the Minister responsible for consumer affairs, I have received only a handful of complaints about the quality of service provided by funeral directors. I do not dismiss the concerns of those involved in the particular cases, but I urge hon. Members to keep the issue in perspective, as I am sure the hon. Member for Leigh would wish.
We are considering an industry with a long tradition of service to the community. The face of the industry is changing in a number of ways. The hon. Member has referred to increased concentration. There have been changes of ownership and a number of small independent firms have disappeared. People are more likely to find that their local undertaker is part of a group rather than an independent. We should not assume that this is necessarily a change for the worse. There have been changes in society, too. Most people no longer expect their local funeral director to be someone they know—they just hope to receive an efficient service at a reasonable cost carried out with sensitivity to their wishes and feelings. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) raised that point in an intervention.
I do not think that we should expect the funeral industry to look today as it did 20, or even 10, years ago. Equally, we should not jump to the conclusion that changes in its structure mean that excessive profits are being made and that people are being ripped off.
Of course, concern about the cost of funerals is not new. Since the 19th century, organisations such as friendly societies, burial societies and industrial assurance companies have made payments to their members to cover the costs of funerals. In 1949, the then Government introduced a death grant of £20 to cover the necessary expenses of a decent funeral. In 1976, widespread concern about the cost of funerals led the then Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection to ask the Price Commission to report on funeral charges and associated charges, including the prices of coffins, burial and cremation. It will be of interest to hon. Members that the commission concluded that, although there was scope for some reduction in funeral charges, profits were not generally excessive. Nevertheless, the commission made the following important observation:

In the relationship between funeral director and client the former has a marked psychological and commercial advantage, so that the balance of bargaining power is tilted in his favour"—>
a point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr.Ashton) in a characteristically powerful speech.
Owing to the distress which usually accompanies a bereavement, those who seek the funeral director's services rarely obtain more than one estimate. For the same reason, the funeral director is able, if he wishes, to influence the relative degree of elaboration of the funeral. We have, however, been assured that this is the exception rather than the rule.
The commission was therefore concerned that the normal forces of competition did not work effectively in this industry because of the special circumstances surrounding services associated with death. To shift the balance more in favour of the client, and to try and encourage clients to make informed choices, the commission recommended that funeral directors should give clients a written estimate, and that a basic simple funeral should be made available, and its price displayed in a prominent position.
The Director General of Fair Trading was asked by the Government to negotiate a code of practice with the National Association of Funeral Directors to cover those points. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, that code of practice exists today. I do not think that I need go into great detail about it, as it was read out by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths).
Let me put this matter in perspective. The report of the Office of Fair Trading pointed out some significant factors that need to be borne in mind in considering the cost of a funeral. First, the funeral director has little control over the cost of disbursements included on his bill, such as the cost of the burial plot, the cost of providing an organist, and the cemetery or crematorium fees. Secondly, the funeral director's own costs, such as those incurred in the provision of staff, vehicles and embalming equipment, are also to some extent outside his control and may have risen at a rate above the rate of inflation.
At this stage, I should say a bit more about costs. People tend to judge the amount of work involved in arranging a funeral by the amount of time they actually see spent—the visit to their home by the funeral director, and the work that he does at the funeral itself. Clearly, a lot more work is involved. I should not like to hazard an estimate of how much, although I know that the hon. Member for Leigh has his own views on the subject, and we listened with some interest to those views. It is clear that, when the time factor is taken into consideration, along with the industry's overheads, which reflect large items of capital expenditure, a funeral is never going to be cheap.
That point was clearly brought out in the report of the Director General of Fair Trading. It is important to remind the House that Sir Gordon did not claim that funeral directors were overcharging or making excessive profits. Comments made in the Director General's report have been quoted out of context, sometimes giving the impression that Sir Gordon took a view on the question of profits. That is not correct. Indeed, he had no basis on which to take a view, as he had not collected any information about funeral directors' costs and margins.
However, he did emphasise that the cost of a funeral is substantial. He recognised that the bereaved sometimes find the final sum larger than they expected. That is why he recommended improvements in the code of conduct of the National Association of Funeral Directors, to provide


more information about prices and about the itemisation of estimates and bills. I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said about itemisation, and I shall certainly give the matter consideration.
The funeral directors' association also called for better publicity for the option of a basic "no frills" funeral. I have noted the remarks of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) about VAT. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment at this stage, but I will give the matter some thought.
I shall deal further with the question of overheads when I comment in more detail on competition in the industry. In the meantime, I want to return to the report of the Office of Fair Trading. The Director General concluded that members of the public needed more information about the price of funerals, including more comparative information, to encourage the bereaved to make an informed choice. He wanted, among other things. to see more publicity for the basis funeral and better itemisation of individual charges in estimates and accounts. I repeat that I shall consider carefully the comments of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw on the question of itemisation.
I am afraid that the National Association of Funeral Directors was not totally in agreement with the report of the Office of Fair Trading, and there would be no point in pretending that it endorsed the conclusion drawn by the OFT from the survey. But it did accept that changes in the code of practice were necessary. Accordingly, revisions were made, and a new code promulgated. I shall not go into that code in great detail, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South did the House the service of reading out its main points. It is an extensive code, the purpose of which is to reassure the public. For instance, it makes absolutely clear the need to observe the confidence of every client, to render good service at all times, to ensure that advertising is in good taste, to provide clients and the general public with full and fair information, to give a written estimate of all funeral charges, and to come up with an itemised account. I should like to deal with those matters in more detail, but unfortunately time does not permit.
I do not think that legislation to regulate the funeral industry is either necessary or desirable. In this respect, I listened to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. It is not my purpose to encourage people to go round complaining about the service that they have received. However, there is no substitute for the informed consumer's taking considered decisions in his own interests. I accept that clients of funeral directors may not have at the top of their list, or in the forefront of their minds, the need to make an informed choice, but legislation will not change that. Ultimately, it must be for the individual to judge whether he has received good service. If he feels that the National Association of Funeral Directors has put in place a system of conciliation and arbitration is of the utmost importance, and I am glad of this opportunity to give publicity to that valuable initiative.
There have been changes in the industry. We have heard about them in this debate, particlarly from the hon. Member for Leigh. However, the Co-op remains dominant. In this respect, the whole House is grateful for the particular expertise that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley brings to the subject. In addition, there are still a large number of independent funeral directors.
The funeral industry is not the first in which small, independent firms have experienced difficulties. The fact

that a number have sold out to groups does not necessarily reflect predatory behaviour on the part of the latter. A number of factors, including increased competition, may have contributed to the changes in the industry. There are signs of more active marketing of different products—for instance, the range of packages to enable one to meet the cost of a future funeral by regular payments. I accept, of course, that the hon. Member for Leigh does not give much credence to these packages. Such arrangements are not new in themselves, but their development in the upper part of the market are.
There were some remarks about profits. It has been claimed that some funeral directors are making huge profits. On this point, other hon. Members, like me, will have read the report of the Great Southern Group's results for 1990. The group, which is quoted in the unlisted securities market, suffered a 9 per cent. downturn in pre-tax profits. The setback occurred despite an overall gain in market share. I hope that this reference to the profits of the Great Southern Group shows that there is another side to the story.

Mr. Cunliffe: Does the Minister concede that the You Care group made a year's profit of £500,000 on a turnover of £2·5 million? Does that not reflect a balance? The Minister talks about competitiveness. Surely this is a classic example of how one company can out-compete another?

Mr. Leigh: I cannot comment on the profits to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but I repeat that we must put the industry in perspective.
I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh, which lasted more than an hour and 20 minutes. I think that the hon. Gentleman was trying to intimate that the industry's profits are generally excessive. I do not think that that is in fact the case. The hon. Gentleman is nodding his head. The insistence of the Director General of Fair Trading on the inclusion of stricter requirements on transparency of information in the code of the National Association of Funeral Directors will also contribute to the increasing competition to which I have referred.
I will say more about the role of information in encouraging consumer choice, which is not straightforward in relation to funerals. As a general policy, the Government strongly hold the view that one of the keys to increased competition, and therefore to lower prices and more efficient services, is a well-informed consumer. That does not mean simply the provision of more information. Consumers need clear information, presented in a way that is easy to analyse and to compare—and at the right time.
Many people do not consider shopping around for a funeral. Some are too distressed, while others regard it as inappropriate, or even disrespectful, to do so. Instead, they want the funeral director to take the arrangements off their hands. Often, they do not think to ask the sort of questions that they would consider natural when contracting any other kind of service.
One might argue that that gives the funeral director an opportunity to take advantage of the consumer. Equally, the director may be faced with the problem of deciding the extent to which he should bother the bereaved with details——

It being Seven o'clock, proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13(8) (Arrangement of public business).

Orders of the Day — Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

PURCHASE ETC. OF PROPERTY AFFECTED BY BLIGHT

' .—(1) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Corporation, make regulations with respect to the action to be taken by the Corporation for alleviating cases of hardship suffered as a result of property being blighted by subsidence damage or the possibility of such damage.

(2) The action which may be required by the regulations is—

(a) the purchase of any blighted property at a price equivalent to its unblighted value; or
(b) the payment of an amount equivalent to the difference between the value of any such property and its unblighted value.

(3) Regulations under this section may make provision as to—

(a) the making of claims under the regulations and the descriptions of persons who may make them;
(b) the descriptions of property in respect of which such claims may be made and the circumstances in which such property is to be regarded as blighted for the purposes of the regulations;
(c) the circumstances in which action is or is not required to be taken (including the circumstances in which a person is to be regarded as suffering hardship);
(d) the determination of the value or unblighted value of any blighted property.

(4) In this section "unblighted value", in relation to any blighted property, means the value which it would have if it were not blighted.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment (a) to the amendment in subsection (2), at end insert—
'(c) the right of owners who have received notices under Clause 44, subsections (4) and (6) to compel the Corporation to purchase blighted property.'.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: This is the first of a number of new clauses and amendments that have been tabled to meet Government commmitments made in Committee. New clause 1 deals with blight.
In order to prevent hardship, British Coal will consider buying houses damaged by subsidence, or in some cases houses that are in imminent danger of being so damaged. Over the past three years, British Coal has bought more than 80 houses, to avoid hardship being caused.
The 1984 report of the Waddilove committee considered British Coal's policy to be "wholly reasonable", and no evidence was presented in Committee to suggest that that conclusion no longer holds good. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that many hon. Members would prefer the arrangements to be placed on a statutory basis, and the new clause will enable the Secretary of State for Energy to make new regulations specifying actions to

be taken by the corporation to alleviate hardship caused as a result of property being blighted by subsidence damage or the possibility of it.
In the avoidance of hardship section of the Brown Book, British Coal states that it will consider making payments to avoid hardship in a number of circumstances. The first is where the owner of a damaged house must sell if for a good reason—for example, because he has found work in another district—and the house cannot be sold at its former, undamaged value. The corporation will consider buying the house at its undamaged value or making up the difference between that and the sale price. In exceptional circumstances, the corporation will do the same if the house is not damaged, but there is a strong and imminent possibility that it will be damaged.
Those arrangements appear to work well and it is not the Government's intention to introduce regulations at this stage. If it becomes clear that those arrangements are not operating fairly, or do not go far enough in avoiding hardship, the Government will have the power to make regulations to improve matters.
I hope that new clause 1 meets with the approval of the House. I am aware that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has tabled an amendment, to which I shall respond if he has a chance to present his case.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I do not mean to be churlish when I say that, although I welcome the Minister's response to representations made from both sides of the Committee, new clause 1 falls short of our expectations. It is another example of Ministers seeking to introduce a "maybe" clause: an enabling measure that they might use, one day, to introduce regulations to alleviate the hardship suffered by householders whose homes are blighted.
A constant theme of debates in Committee was that a balance had to be struck between discretion and regulations of the kind proposed by the Minister and the belief of many of us that the Bill should establish rights. The Minister introduced the new clause in a downbeat way, when he could have said, "I am trying to break new ground." Instead, he told the House that the Government may introduce regulations at some time in the future that will take British Coal's present policies a bit further.
We pressed hard on Second Reading and in Committee for recognition of the blight caused by mining subsidence because we do not agree that British Coal should be in a position to be judge and jury in hardship cases and the only authority to exercise discretion. While no one wants to see the extensive acquisition of blighted properties, the fact that British Coal purchased only 80 homes over the past three years reveals the marginal way in which it exercises its discretionary power. It is disturbing to hear the Minister say that he thinks that British Coal is doing a good job in that respect.
I shall cite constituency cases that have come to my attention even since the Committee stage, which illustrates why new clause 1 should go further than it does. The Minister said that the Government have adopted the Brown Book's definition of hardship in relation to blight. In one case with which I am familiar, Mr. A found a purchaser for his property at an agreed price, but the announcement of subsidence in Edwardsville, in the vicinity of that property, caused the sale to be aborted.
Mr. A has spent 12 months trying to sell his property, even at a reduced price, as part of his divorce settlement, in order that his divorce proceedings may be finalised. Does the Minister consider that such a case constitutes a form of hardship and is one in which British Coal should exercise its discretionary purchasing powers? In fact, British Coal refused to do so.
The individual concerned is not a young man, but, whatever the age of the person concerned, if British Coal does not consider that case as one not involving hardship, what is its definition of hardship? The Minister gave as an example a person moving to find work in another district. That may soon be common in Edwardsville, in my constituency, because its deep navigation pit was closed on Good Friday, and a number of miners who worked there are thinking about going on the road to Selby Beach, to become mining gipsies once again.
There are a number of other examples of the sort that I have just given the Minister, where British Coal is exercising its discretion on hardship in a minimalist fashion.
The new clause talks of
the circumstances in which action is or is not required to be taken (including the circumstances in which a person is to be regarded as suffering hardship)".
Will the Minister tell us whether the case that I mentioned—the purchase of a blighted property to resolve divorce proceedings—constitutes a case of hardship which therefore should be subject to the blight provisions?

Mr. Alan Meale: Will my hon. Friend also point out to the Minister that the new clause could be interpreted by British Coal as applying only to physical damage to a property? What about area blight because of mining subsidence? In some cases people cannot buy a house or raise the mortgage to buy one, because of blight caused by subsidence damage.

Mr. Rowlands: I agree with my hon. Friend about blight—it is not merely related to physical damage to a property or the imminence of such damage. Properties in the vicinity of subsidence are automatically blighted and are therefore difficult to sell. That is why I tabled my amendment to the new clause, because it tries to tackle some of the problems that my hon. Friend mentions.
My amendment seeks to do one thing that the new clause does not do—to establish a right for people whose property is blighted. What sort of right should we establish? I have reached what I thought was a reasonable compromise between the discretionary provision provided by the Minister and my belief that we should establish the principle of a right for householders to serve a blight notice. My compromise seeks to resolve the matters that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) mentioned.
My amendment seeks to tie blight provisions to the serving of notices under clause 44(4). I suggested it initially in Committee. I have mulled the matter over and believe that the case for such action is now even stronger. I do not go as far as to suggest that people have a right to serve blight notices on British Coal once any notice under clause 44 is served, although I think that there is a case for that. By nature, I am a moderate man, so my compromise amendment does not even go so far as to suggest that.
Once a notice is served under clause 44(1), there will be blight. As soon as an estate agent or a surveyor hears that there has been pushed through a door a notice stating that

the property may one day be affected by subsidence, the property is blighted, but, as a moderate, I accept that we should not go as far as to enable people to exercise such a right in that situation. However, after people have received a notice under clause 44(4), people should have such a right. That subsection states that British Coal can serve a blight notice 12 months after the first notice and again 12 months after that if need be. It can continue to serve notices warning householders that there is a danger of subsidence to their property.
While the initial notice under clause 44 should perhaps not trigger off blight provisions, if British Coal reaffirms the threat of danger or the warning of damage to a property because of subsidence, as a notice under clause 44(4) would do, the householder should have a right to serve a blight notice.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: My hon. Friend served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill and has great knowledge of the measure. Unfortunately, I was not privileged to be chosen to serve. Does he think that British Coal could use blight to force prices down it were compelled to purchase a property? Back in the 1950s and 1960s, councils bought houses for a pittance because they were in slum clearance areas. If British Coal were ruthless enough, it could put a blight notice on an area because it realised that it would have to pay, but it would make an offer at a rock-bottom price and the householder might not wish to sell. If my hon. Friend is not careful, his provision could work in two ways.

Mr. Rowlands: I believe that planning and compensation legislation has changed considerably since the time of the example quoted by my hon. Friend. Whereas that was a danger once, I do not think that it is now. Indeed, even in the Minister's new clause, the discretionary power is for payment of an equivalent to the unblighted value of a property. We sorted out the matter in planning and compensation law some time ago. British Coal would not be able to get away with what my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) suggests, and I do not think that it is an objection to my amendment.
Two things should happen to the new clause. First, we should strengthen it, to establish a right rather than a discretionary power. The new clause allows British Coal to carry on as it has done before and that is not good enough, therefore we should establish a right. I offer a compromise version of that right by suggesting that if a notice is served time after time under clause 44 warning householders of the possibility of damage, even though it has not occurred, householders should have the right to expect British Coal to purchase the property if they want to move for a variety of good reasons. It should be a right and not a discretionary power as the new clause suggests.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: New clause 1 is rather like clause 41—the arbitration clause. It gives the Minister and his successor the power at some later stage to introduce mandatory regulations. It is what some of my more meticulous friends might call the rule of the threat of law, and it is designed to concentrate the minds of institutions such as British Coal and to remind them that if they do not play ball with their voluntary codes, the Government will use the power that Parliament has given to it through measures like this.
I welcome the new clause but, like the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), I think that it would be helpful if the Minister could spell out certain matters so that no one in British Coal can be in any doubt about precisely the range of possibilities that we wish to encompass within it.
Clearly, two kinds of blight are associated with coal mining subsidence. The first is very much of a temporary nature and is when a property is subject to subsidence, everyone in the area or on the estate suddenly goes into a panic, the price of the property falls through the floor but later the situation stabilises and after a few months property prices return to normal. The second type is more long-term and is the one with which we are all most concerned tonight, when there is a long-standing history of subsidence which is not constantly manifest at a high profile, but comes to the surface at irregular intervals. People who bought properties a few years previously when there was no general concern about subsidence in the area, suddenly find out about it and the price of their property depreciates.

Mr. Meale: Surely when there is subsidence and the prices of properties in an area are blighted, it does not right itself. We must establish protection for people within the law because those property values are not going up. In coal mining areas where subsidence has occurred, the properties are the lowest priced pro rata for their region of any properties in Britain. They are seriously affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is trying to get a right for home owners rather than a might.
The most disturbing facts about the new clause are that it not only provides for regulations "after consultation" with British Coal but that, in its introductory line, it only uses the word "may" rather than providing for a right.

Mr. Howarth: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but he and I would be naive if we were to assume that the word "consultation" in respect of negotiations that a Minister of the Crown might wish to have with an organisation such as British Coal implied the relationship that he suggests. If the Minister were to return to the House and seek approval for such regulations, it would be because the voluntary arrangements with British Coal had failed. In British Coal's case, it is far more likely that consultations would be more of a damage limitation exercise rather than a question of setting the terms. I suspect that the Minister would set the terms. Neither my hon. Friend the Minister nor his successor would address an issue such as this without their attention having been drawn to the great concerns expressed by the House at this time. Therefore, the regulations will be fairly stringent.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney referred to a few cases where both he and I believe that it would be sensible for British Coal to agree to purchase a property. The Minister said that the owner would have to want to sell for good reason, and he referred, as an example, to someone who lost his job and also to a house that was in imminent danger of being damaged by subsidence. There have been a few cases in my constituency of people being unable to raise cash for business ventures because the value of their property has fallen; they have therefore been unable to raise cash from

a lender. The traditional way in the United Kingdom of setting up a business or expanding it is, rightly or wrongly, to use one's residence as collateral. If the value of somebody's house falls, that person is unable to raise funds to expand the business or to start up in business. I hope that the Minister will spell out to British Coal that that is another case that it ought to bear in mind.
People may also want to move house because, due to their family having expanded, their existing house is too small. The fact that those cases have been spelt out on the Floor of the House might help British Coal to understand the range of cases that Parliament is considering and that it believes British Coal ought to take into account when assessing entitlement to blight compensation.

Mr. Tony Benn: The Bill aims to protect people who are likely to be affected either by subsidence or by the threat of subsidence. The amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is the absolute minimum that we require; had I drafted it, I should have included the words "any order under clause 44." If the coal board issues a notice that shows that it may damage somebody's property, that is blight. Blight relates not only to subsidence but also to the threat of subsidence.
The Bill provides that, if somebody's house, through no fault of that person, is to be undermined by British Coal, for its own good reasons, that person's future is under the control of others. British Coal has the discretion to buy the house, or to remedy the defect, or to make a payment in lieu. British Coal also has the right to decide whether somebody has good reason to want to sell his or her property. Apart from the value of somebody's house being undermined, that person is also on probation to British Coal. Nobody will object to the new clause, if that is the best thing on offer, but all that the Minister says is that he will take a reserve discretion.
We must consider that from the point of view of somone whose house is affected. Many of these people are elderly and do not know where to turn for help. This is a complicated Bill, a point to which we shall return when we consider new clause 2 which would establish advice centres. People may suddenly have a notice pushed throught their door saying that their house may be affected. That is blight. The news spreads immediately and affects the whole area. Then they find that British Coal will have power over their lives: it can do one of three things and can then decide whether people have good reason for leaving houses that it intends to blight. The Minister says, "If it all goes wrong, we might introduce regulations which might do this or that." What use is that to people who are under pressure?
Members of Parliament have cases put to them every day. That happened to me only a few days ago. What are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to write to the Minister, who will then tell us that he is waiting for British Coal to act? If one writes again to the Minister, he will reply, "Until British Coal has acted, I can't decide whether to lay a regulation." People will not know what to do. Therefore, my hon. Friend's amendment is eminently reasonable, as is evidenced by the fact that it has received limited support from Conservative Members who represent people who have been affected. That inclines me to the view that in the other place this wrong should be put right. If British Coal wanted to damage somebody's house, that person would then have the right to say to it, "If you


want to damage my house, you must buy it." A proper balance of rights and responsibilities should be enshrined in the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will take seriously this exceptionally modest amendment. It makes sense to anyone who has any experience, either personally or through representations, of the problems created by mining subsidence.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). We have to ascertain what is meant by blight. That is difficult. If, however, British Coal's evidence to the Select Committee on Energy on coal mining subsidence is anything to go by, it will never agree to new clause 1. On previous occasions I have drawn the attention of the House to a startling example—the small village of Darrington, which contains the highest-priced houses in my constituency. They cost about £150,000 which, in my area, is a very high price. The Prince of Wales colliery at Pontefract is taking coal from under that village.
In recent weeks Yorkshire Television has highlighted that problem, and also the fact that the ancestors of the president of the National Union of Mineworkers are buried in Darrington church. British Coal will have to carry out major restoration work if that church is to be saved. It has already purchased a few badly damaged properties in the village.
I have dealt with the case of a purchase from a man who has a job in Lancashire. He was a miner who was made redundant. Houses in the village which are not damaged are blighted because they cannot be sold at the market value that would have applied prior to mining subsidence. Who will decide which property will be damaged and which will not? There is not much consolation for a person whose house has not been damaged but which still loses its market value.
7.30 pm
If new clause 1 means what it says and covers all subsidence and all blight, the village of Darrington is blighted. One can imagine what will happen. The people of the village have a right to protection, but new clause 1 will not provide it. It contains too many mays and mights. Will it ever mean anything? I do not want to be churlish about the new clause because any improvement on previous regulations is welcome. I am not saying that there has not been an honest endeavour to assist, but without my hon. Friend's amendment new clause 1 will not solve the problem. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will take note of the amendment and will acknowledge that, without it, new clause 1 means nothing.

Mr. Eric Insley: My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) mentioned Darrington, but he did not deal specifically with the church there. It may assist all hon. Members to hear what will happen to the church, which is to have its stained glass windows removed and the floor removed to a depth of about 7 ft so that it can withstand the mining operations underneath it. If my hon. Friend were to refer to what will happen to the church, it would give some idea of what would happen to the £150,000 houses in the village.

Mr. Lofthouse: I thought that I had mentioned the church, which is to have extensive repairs. It will be a major exercise, and I do not think that it is yet known whether it can be saved. It is a mediaeval church and a listed building, and the coal board has great problems with it. One can imagine the type of problems caused by the nature of such a church and the fact that the property around it is also blighted. Professional people and others coming into the area are keen to live there, but there is evidence that the price of houses has recently taken a dive. It is a major problem, and I repeat that new clause 1 will not solve it without the amendment, which will go some way to identifying blight.

Mr. Kevin Barron: When I saw the new clause on the amendment paper, I was pleased that the Government had recognised the problems of blight for areas suffering from coal mining subsidence. On Second Reading and in Committee, I and my hon. Friends gave many examples of properties that had suffered blight and of communities where the sale of property virtually ceases because of subsidence damage in the area. Therefore, I was more than surprised to hear the Minister say that he felt that British Coal, in its Brown Book, was dealing adequately with the question of hardship and was doing a good job. I hope that I am not misquoting him in saying that. If what he said were so, we would not have argued in Committee for an explanation of exactly what blight meant with regard to coal mining subsidence.
I and my hon. Friends hope that new clause 1 is a recognition of the fact that subsidence blights not only the damaged property but neighbouring property. That idea was mentioned in Committee and the Minister went away to consider it. The amendment deals with blight where a notice of intent to mine has been laid and withdrawn and then laid again.
Although I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), it is difficult to say where blight begins and ends. If a notice to mine is withdrawn and then laid again in a year's time, I have some doubt whether there should be an obligation on British Coal to buy back such properties. I say that in light of the fact that houses can be undermined by coal mining and yet not suffer damage. Whether a property suffers damage depends on what sort of mining engineering goes on underground. Blight might not affect the properties being undermined. Second Reading and in Committee, we consistently sought to ensure that, when it was plain that blight extended further than the damaged property, there would be an obligation on British Coal to buy back that property if it caused hardship. The Minister said that it was not the intention—again I hope that I am not misquoting him—to regulate at this stage.
I support new clause 1, It deals with property being blighted by subsidence damage of by the possibility of such damage—something that British Coal has not recognised previously. I ask the Minister to consider the issue more closely and to decide whether we need regulations to deal with property which is patently undamaged but which is nevertheless blighted and cannot be sold because it is affected by what happens across the road or to the house next door which has been the subject of compensation. The Minister should consider introducing regulations as speedily as possible so that British Coal cannot dodge the


issue but should consider whether houses are blighted and agree that owners should be fully compensated for damage.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In Committee the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) always introduced his amendments in a constructive and thoughtful manner, and I did not dismiss them out of hand. The same is true today.
I understand the difficulties that can be caused by blight. The effect of the amendment is to define a blighted property as one that has received a section 44 reminder notice. However, the purpose of the new clause is to avoid hardship arising from blight, so there is a difference of approach. During the past two years or more, my Department has not received details of any case in which British Coal has refused action under its Brown Book provisions in the case of hardship. I cannot comment on individual cases this evening, although if the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me about the case he mentioned, I shall endeavour to have it reconsidered.
The main problem with the amendment is that it ties blight to the issuing of a section 44 notice even in cases where the householder involved has no intention of moving and regardless of whether hardship is involved. That is why the Waddilove committee, when investigating that point, concluded that a balance should be struck between the interests of home owners and the interests of British Coal. If the amendment were accepted, British Coal would be obliged either to buy or to make up the difference in value of any such property regardless of whether the person concerned needed to move.

Mr. Rowlands: The Minister is trying to knock down a case that we never made. We are trying to establish the house owner's right. The house owner would exercise that right only if he felt the need to do so. British Coal would not be compelled to purchase every property that had received a reminder notice under clause 44(4). However, the amendment would establish the right of a home owner who keeps on receiving such notices to serve a blight notice on British Coal. That is a reasonable proposition. The home owner would not do that lightly or frivolously. He would do so only because he felt the compulsion to leave his home because of the continued blighting of the property caused by continually receiving reminder notices of a continual risk of damage to the property.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman has expanded slightly on the amendment. What he has said does not conflict with my initial description of it. The amendment would enable all owners in receipt of such a notice to compel the corporation to purchase blighted property regardless of whether the property owner or householder wanted to move or whether he was experiencing hardship.

Mr. Benn: An entirely new concept of blight has emerged from the Minister's speech—a blight on civil rights. If one owns a house and wants to sell it, one sells it. If the house is about to be undermined and one wants to sell it, one comes under a hardship test applied by somebody else. That is a blight on a person's civil or economic right to sell his property. That is offensive.
Some people whose houses are undermined might rather live in the village and get the damage put right. Why, if they want to leave for any reason—it is up to them to decide—should the fact that the property is being undermined remove their civil or economic right to have a fair price under the Bill? I hope that the Minister will consider the point when the Bill goes to another place, because the case becomes stronger the more I hear it opposed.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am addressing myself specifically to the case made not only by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, but by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). Incidentally, I know something about the village that the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford mentioned, because I visited a pit in Yorkshire last week at which that problem was raised with me.
The new clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to cover the position described by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford. There is a difference between blight and the more permanent damage to a property that may occur as a direct result of undermining. The essential point about the serving of a notice under clause 44 is that the mining may or may not proceed. The hon. Member for Merthy Tydfil and Rhymney will know that in some cases the notices are withdrawn.
Under the Bill, the notices will have to be regularly reviewed, at least annually. If mining proceeds, damage may or may not occur to properties. If damage occurs, the properties must be restored to their undamaged state and to the satisfaction of the householder, in accordance with other provisions in the Bill. If the property is undamaged, the blight is removed in due course because the threat of undermining is not permanent.
By its nature, a coal face is planned and progresses—or does not progress—and then, in the fullness of time, the blight is removed. Blight is not permanent, and the diminution in value of the houses which may or may not occur is likewise not permanent. That is the distinction between the blight provisions in the Bill and others that deal with permanent damage which may occur to properties.

Mr. Rowlands: In the elongated process that the Minister is describing, what is permanent is that the householder will not be able to sell his property during the whole period. I chose to tie the blight provision to clause 44(4) and not to the more expansive provisions of clause 44(1) because I realised that clause 44(3) included a provision to lift the notices. Under clause 44(4), British Coal will serve notices twelvemonth after twelvemonth. Is the Minister saying that during the whole process of uncertainty about whether damage will occur, a poor householder will have to wait and that only on the ground of hardship will he be able to serve a blight notice or get British Coal to purchase his property?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: During the period of blight between the serving of a clause 44 notice and the eventual resolution of the issue, either by mining having taken place or by notice being served that it will not take place, if a


householder needs to move for a variety of reasons—and we can all instance examples—British Coal will purchase the house concerned or make up the difference between the blighted and unblighted values.

Mr. Lofthouse: Surely the Minister must appreciate this point. A person may be interested in purchasing a house in, for example, Darrington. If he is told that the owner has had two orders under clause 44 saying that there may be mining subsidence and if he then sees an identical house for sale further up the street which has not had a notice served on it, which property will he buy at true market value? He will buy the property that has not received the notice and the owner of the house that has received the notice will either not be able to sell it or will have to sell it at a far lower price.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the householder can show, as he clearly could in the example given, that his house is less valuable, the provisions of the new clause come into play. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), the new clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to cover the more detailed eventualities. Hardship is a difficult concept to include in statute. There may be cases that are difficult to predict, so it is better to deal with them in regulations. At present, the practice of British Coal in purchasing properties does not extend to businesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood pointed out. If it was thought right to extend the provision to businesses, especially to small businesses which were used as an example, that would be done by regulation under the new clause.

Mr. George J. Buckley: We seem to have debated the new clause in relation to the definition of blight. There seems to be a contradiction between the Minister's definition and the need under the amendment for a regulation to have been submitted already. Would the Minister willingly purchase at market price a property that was either affected or likely to be affected by subsidence? He and anybody with sense would not purchase a property at the full market price if there is a likelihood of subsidence or if subsidence is already taking place. There must be an obligation on the perpetrator of any current or expected damage to compensate the owner by either making up the market price or purchasing the property.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said. in the case that he quoted the owner could not sell the property for 12 months. I suggest that if a property will not move in a 12-month period, it is blighted and will not achieve the market price. No sane person in a mining community would buy a property that was listed to have mining operations under it.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There is no difference between us on the definition of blight. It is obviously the case that a property which has received a notice that it may be mined under in the near future will usually be more difficult to sell than one that has not had such a notice. There is no dispute about that. However, as part of the Bill, we are considering whether and in what circumstances the British Coal Corporation should be obliged to purchase that property.
Mining blight is almost always a temporary phenomenon because in due course the mining either does

or does not take place. If damage has occurred to the property, it is repaired and the property is restored to the satisfaction of the householder. So the matter is dealt with. We are left with the existing practice of British Coal to purchase properties, such as that instanced by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford, which are affected by subsidence damage if failure to do so would cause hardship because for good reasons the owner of the property has to sell it during the months or years of the notice. The owner may have to move away to retire, to find a job elsewhere, or due to ill health which may necessitate moving to a smaller property. In such cases British Coal will either buy the property or make up the difference. That is the practice at present. The new clause provides for that practice to be put into statute.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Do I understand that the Minister has finished?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) wish to press his amendment?

Mr. Rowlands: We must not take a negative decision in this House on the matter dealt with in the amendment because I hope that the common sense and logic expressed by me and so many of my hon. Friends about the need for provisions of a nature similar to that in the amendment will fall on sounder ears in another place. I hope that that will be so, and I shall therefore not press my amendment.

New Clause 3

COMPENSATION FOR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSSES OF SMALL FIRMS

'.—(1) Where at any time any property—

(a) which is used wholly or partly for the purposes of a small firm; and
(b) as respects which one or more notices have been or should have been given by the Corporation under section 44(1) below,

is affected by subsidence damage, this section shall apply as respects the period beginning with that time and ending with the discharge by the Corporation of their remedial obligation with respect to the damage.

(2) For each year or part of a year—

(a) which falls within that period; and
(b) in which any consequential loss resulting from the damage is suffered by the firm,

the Corporation shall be under an obligation to make to the firm a payment of such amount as would have been payable to the firm by way of damages in respect of that loss if the damage had been attributable to the negligence of the Corporation; and in determining the amount (if any) of such a payment regard shall be had to the rules of law relating to remoteness and the mitigation of losses.

(3) The Corporation shall not be liable to make a payment under this section unless, as soon as reasonably practicable after the first time—

(a) when the firm suffers any consequential loss resulting from the damage; or
if later, when the firm has such knowledge as is mentioned in subsection (4) (read with subsection (5)) of section 3 above,

the firm gives notice of the loss to the Corporation.

(4) Where a notice is given under subsection (3) above, the Corporation may, by notice given to any person who is entitled to give a damage notice in respect of the subsidence


damage, elect to treat the notice under that subsection as if it were also a damage notice given by that person in respect of that damage.

(5) The Corporation shall not be liable to make a payment under this section except on a claim made by the firm within the period of twelve months beginning with the end of the year or part of a year to which the payment relates.

(6) A payment under this section shall carry interest at the applicable rate (if any) from the end of the period mentioned in subsection (5) above until payment.

(7) In this section—
associated employer" shall be construed in accordance with section 153(4) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978;
consequential loss" does not include—

(a) any loss for which provision is made by section 27(2) or (2A) above; or
(b) any loss resulting from subsidence damage as respects which the Corporation's remedial obligation is excluded by section 31(3) or 32(4) or (7) below;


employee" has the meaning given by section 153(1) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978;
small firm" means any person who, at the time when the property is affected by subsidence damage, is carrying on a business and satisfies the requirements of subsection (8) below;
year" means a calendar year.

(8) A person satisfies the requirement of this subsection at any time if, at that time, the number of employees employed by him, added to the number of employees employed by any associated employer of his, does not exceed 20.

(9) The Secretary of State may by order substitute for the number of employees specified in subsection (8) above (whether as originally enacted or as previously amended under this subsection) such other number of employees as he thinks fit.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 28, 13 to 17, 30, 31 and 35.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: When we debated clause 29 in Committee, it was pointed out that treating subsidence damage to movable property as though it had arisen from British Coal's negligence would allow claims to be made for consequential loss. As a result, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) pointed out at the time, the Bill as considered by the Standing Committee was inconsistent in that it allowed claims for consequential loss when these arose from subsidence damage to movable property, but not when they arose from subsidence to buildings. I therefore undertook to reconsider the issue of consequential loss.
I remind the House that the Waddilove committee, which considered the matter, did not recommend that statutory provision should be made in respect of consequential loss arising from subsidence damage, except in specific instances such as crop loss payments to farmers and expenses incurred by householders who had to move home. It was not, therefore, the Government's intention to legislate to allow claims for consequential loss generally. However, it had escaped our attention that, in the case of movable property, such claims would be allowed.
Although the general idea of consequential loss is well known, it is nevertheless a concept that lacks precise definition. Unlike the case of damage to property, consequential loss depends on such factors as the nature of the business affected, the state of its order book, the

availability of spare capacity, the duration of the damage, and scope for mitigation. It is hard for any business to assess its liabilities for consequential loss which it may cause in other businesses, given the uncertainties. That is offset for most businesses by the knowledge that a liability for consequential loss will arise only if they are negligent. But it would be much more difficult for British Coal to assess its liability for consequential loss arising from mining subsidence because subsidence is not negligence but part of its normal, day-to-day, lawful business operations.
A business can operate without being negligent; but British Coal cannot realistically operate without causing mining subsidence. Accordingly, there would be a serious risk that substantial quantities of otherwise economically extractable coal reserves might be sterilised simply on account of the uncertain scale of liability that might arise from claims for consequential loss. This consideration alone would point towards proceeding cautiously.
Another important point, however, is that British Coal is not acting negligently in carrying out mining operations. It is lawfully entitled to do so, in the public interest, in order to exploit a major energy resource. Where such mining damages property, the law requires the corporation to take remedial action and bear the expense. That is what the Bill is about. That is the case even if, for example, a developer erects a new commercial building in a mining area over mineable reserves of coal. He has in so doing created a new liability for British Coal—the liability to repair any subsidence damage to this new building arising from the mining of coal that it already owns. In a sense, one could describe this as a consequential loss for British Coal arising from the developer's activities—although in this situation the corporation has no entitlement to compensation for the increased cost of recovering those coal reserves or even for their sterilisation, if that is the consequence of the development.
There are some fundamental issues here, involving a conflict between the legitimate interests of business operations on the surface and the legitimate business operations under the surface of the same land by British Coal.
The House may have to return to this issue in future legislation, but for the moment I recognise that consequential loss experienced by business may give rise to hardship, and in such circumstances compensation would be appropriate.

Mr. Meale: Will the Minister clarify one point? I fully appreciate what is proposed in the new clause. I realise that the Minister is helping the business community, but what about the large businesses in the communities called local authorities? Will consequential loss by them be covered? Such costs ultimately fall on the ratepayers. Is the provision only for small businesses?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall come to the types of business that would be covered by consequential loss, but I confirm to the hon. Gentleman something which he already knows. There is no provision in statute for consequential loss, and certainly local authorities are not covered.
British Coal aims to deal sympathetically with such hardship cases. To give an easy example, if a corner shop loses trade while subsidence damage is being repaired, the sole proprietor could well experience hardship. On the


other hand, if a supermarket which operates in a mining area but is part of a regional or national chain loses trade in similar circumstances, the proprietors of such a geographically diverse business are unlikely to experience hardship.
8 pm
Hardship in this context would be difficult to define in legislative terms. As a proxy, we have prepared a new clause which allows compensation to be paid to small firms which experience consequential loss as a result of damage to their business premises. Amendments to clause 29 treat similarly consequential loss arising from damage to movable property.
Because consequential loss is likely to increase with time, the clause would require the small firm to notify British Coal as soon as reasonably practicable after the loss is first experienced so that the corporation can suggest any mitigating action and the precise circumstances of the loss can be understood by the two parties to the claim to minimise the risk of subsequent disputes.
Clearly, all reasonable steps to mitigate the extent of consequential loss should be taken as quickly as possible, and subsection (2) refers explicitly to the common law rules that apply. Notification of individual property owners under the provisions of clause 44 will alert the firm to the possibility of subsidence damage and therefore will assist in planning mitigating action. The serving of such individual notices on business premises will also remind British Coal of the possibility of consequential loss arising from mining operations. In all the circumstances, we think it right to restrict claims for consequential loss to properties for which such notices have been or should have been given.
The definition of "small firm" is important. We have borrowed it from employment legislation and have set a ceiling of 20 employees, although we propose to vary that number by order and provide for that in the Bill.
New clause 3 and the amendments to clause 29 establish a clear basis on which small firms, those most likely to experience hardship, could claim compensation for consequential loss arising from damage to business premises or movable property used by such businesses. It represents a sensible advance on present law. The wider questions connected with consequential loss will need to be looked at in connection with future legislation.

Mr. Barron: I intend to be brief. We welcome new clause 3, which arises directly from amendments to clause 29 that we tabled in Committee. It deals with the question of compensation for consequential loss to movable property, but not fixed property. We gave as an example a dairy farmer.
New clause 3 is a brave attempt to strike a balance. It addresses the question of how far coal mining is prejudiced by any losses that may be suffered on the surface—not in terms of property, which is easily definable, but in circumstances of consequential loss or of contracts that may be held by anybody working above any areas that are being mined. We are pleased that the Government have taken our arguments on board.
The Minister said that the Government had borrowed the definition of small firms, which was firms of not more than 20 people. We hope that they will be flexible and prepared to vary the number by order to include bigger firms. We look forward to seeing how the proposed new

clause operates and whether it brings better, more effective justice to people and businesses, however small, that are affected by mining activities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

ADVICE CENTRES

`.—(l) The Secretary of State shall, after consultation with the Corporation, ensure that the Corporation shall establish advice centres within three months of the commencement of the provisions of this Act.

(2) The advice centres shall offer, free of charge, advice to all claimants in need of legal or technical advice on any matter relating to coal subsidence.

(3) The advice centres shall issue guidelines on the making of claims under regulations made under the provisions of this Act.

(4) All reasonable expenses of the advice centres will be met by the Secretary of State.

(5) The Corporation shall submit to the Secretary of State an annual report on the working of the advice centres to be established under the provision of this section.'.—[Mr.Barron.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Barron: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
On Second Reading on 4 February we had a thorough debate on advice centres. In Committee we tabled a comprehensive new clause about advice, but unfortunately neither the Minister nor Tory Members supported it. We were sorry about that, because even the Government's White Paper on subsidence half-recommended that there should be advice centres or, at least, one advice centre. Many people have been involved in other organisations, such as the Consortium of Authorities Liaising on Subsidence, and have supported advice centres.
Despite the improvements to the position of claimants that will result from the Bill, particularly when tonight's amendments are included, there needs to be a shift in favour of the claimant at an early stage. From past practice, it is clear that it is not good enough to rely on British Coal to tell a claimant of his or her rights. People need advice before they become claimants.
After the issue of notices about the likelihood of mining beneath a property, people will naturally want to take advice on what should happen next. Their neighbours will also have been notified that British Coal may in the near future need to undermine their property. It is not enough to ask people to go to a solicitor or an agent who must be paid from the claimants' pockets. Only successful claimants can have their expenses reimbursed. Many people may wish to seek advice when they receive the initial notice, whether or not they later become claimants. The Bill does not respond to their need.
As I said on Second Reading and as we have said consistently over the years when we have debated these issues at different conferences, particularly in the midlands coalfield, and when we have issued press releases, free, impartial expert advice is essential. The only way to achieve that is through an advice centre. We have won the debates on these issues, but lost the votes.
I do not expect us to press the issue to a vote again tonight. The other place may wish to consider what the Department of Energy, the Select Committee on Energy and other bodies have said about what happens in the initial stages of possible coal mining subsidence damage


and how an individual protects his interests against the vested interests of British Coal. Thank goodness British Coal must now notify the individual that the property may be undermined, but it still has a vested interest in not paying compensation for damages or expenses arising from claims, whether or not they are successful.
There is still an imbalance. Has the Minister considered further the arguments that we put in Committee? I hope that they will be put in another place if we are not successful tonight in getting the Minister's commitment to consider the issue again.
We had a long debate in Committee about the location of a "national" advice centre. Conservative Members asked why it should be in one particular place. The obvious place was, and still is, in the north Nottinghamshire coalfield in view of the number of subsidence cases there, but that is not the only area for which the centre would operate. Many agents in that area would make a good living from coal mining subsidence. Some of them have become millionaires in a few years because of the circumstances in that area. Many people in my constituency and elsewhere correspond with those agents because they are expert at winning justice from British Coal when a person's property has been damaged by coal mining subsidence.
That is not a geographical argument. We should have a national base so that people would know who to contact or would be referred to it by a local advice service that may not give advice on coal mining damage. People could write to the centre and receive expert advice without having to go to an agent or a similar organisation and put money up front. If they never had a successful claim, they would have to pay that money out of their own purse even though they had been notified of the likelihood of damage to their property by the British Coal Corporation.
I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter, if he has not done so already, so that people can obtain advice without having to confront the British Coal Corporation, with all the money it has to fight its corner.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) is right. We had an extensive debate on this matter in Committee. Like all those who lose the vote, the Opposition always imagine that they won the argument. They did not win the argument, nor did they win the vote. As has been pointed out, they were only asking for one national advice centre. We had the impression that it should preferably be in Mansfield, although I acknowledge that the report of the Committee proceedings refers only to Nottinghamshire. We shall not fall out about that.
At that time we were talking about a team of qualified heaven-knows-who's. It is a great shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) is not here today, as he defended the poverty-stricken barristers who were offering their services at a fraction of the cost of all the other experts who had been trotted out.
In Committee, I said that the clause had a superficial attraction, and it is true that there is a superficial attraction to the clause before us today. However, I still do not agree with it, and I will not support it. I did not approve then and I do not approve now of yet another centre to add to the multiplicity of centres. I am quite certain that with careful

thought and discussion between the Department of Energy and British Coal, given the relevant clauses in the Bill, the problem can be solved sensibly, cost-effectively and with the interests of my constituents as much as anyone else's well covered.
Organisations such as the citizens advice bureaux, the advice centres of district councils and various solid fuel showrooms can all provide information. When the CABs were mentioned in Committee, the hon. Member for Rother Valley commented that the CAB funding in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) had promptly been withdrawn by the local authority. That decision is a comment on the priorities of Labour authorities. It is sad that a CAB should have its funding withdrawn. There are less important matters that a local council could discontinue if there was a choice between that and funding an important organisation such as the CAB.
8.15 pm
In Committee the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) made a valid point. He said:
The scale of the problem is great"—
to give him his due, he gave credit to the Bill—
as is the scale of the change to legislation proposed in the Bill.
I agree totally with the hon. Gentleman. He went on to say:
it is unthinkable that the changes to legislation being discussed in the Committee could be implemented without an independent source of advice to property owners and householders.
I agree that the advice must be independent. That is why I view with some puzzlement the wording of the original clause and of the new clause, which does not specify independence of advice. That is a problem, and it is why I do not like the new clause. I should prefer that British Coal made a funding contribution to centres not run by British Coal, or to a local authority so that the advice would be independent. The new clause will not deliver that.
I am anxious that my constituents get good advice. I do my best and my city council does its best. On this issue, I am at one with the hon. Member for Mansfield. I hope that I am not getting the hon. Member into difficulties merely because there is cross-party agreement on some of these matters. The hon. Gentleman said in Committee;
The most worrying aspect of the problem is that in Nottinghamshire large numbers of claimants have used coal mining subsidence agents. Existing legislation has shoved people in that general direction".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 March 1991; c. 263–64.]
The hon. Gentleman is right, but Opposition Members would have to agree that we are now in a totally different ball park. The Bill does away with many of the problems that have bedevilled all hon. Members in recent years. The Bill deals with those problems sufficiently.
Opposition Members, whether they like to admit it or not, accepted our criticisms of their one national advice centre. We mentioned that many hon. Members faced these problems and they accepted that there was no point in having one centre, convenient though it might be, in Mansfield. Lo and behold, the Opposition have come up today with a new clause which proposes a number of centres but does not specify how many. I can imagine them making a meal of this if, heaven forbid, they were ever in government.
However, they have changed one thing from the old clause—they have realised that by the time they have logged up any number of highly qualified engineers all sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for someone to seek their advice, it would be an unfair imposition on British Coal. So what did they do? They changed subsection (4) so that the cost is now to be met by the Secretary of State. That is a switch from British Coal having to pick up the bill. I have a feeling that they are trying to create another local authority bottomless pit. That is what is all about. It would be a bottomless pit of funding for centres in mining areas.
Every member of the Committee knew that this was a good Bill. It is not any worse without the clause—if I thought that it was, I would vote with the Opposition. There is enough in the Bill to satisfy my constituents and I am more than happy to accept the view taken by the Government in Committee—I presume that they will take the same view today—not to accept the new clause.

Mr. Benn: The issue is not whether this is a good Bill but whether the people who need to take advantage of its provisions know their rights. Without disrespect to the Minister—I have occupied a post in his Department—I noticed the enormous care with which he read the briefing provided by his officials. He could not even look up because he had to get it absolutely right. Many Ministers are in that position, but they have legal advice behind them. The people who suddenly receive notice that British Coal may undermine their house or village panic because they do not know their rights.
It is no criticism of the Bill that it is so complicated. Indeed, good Bills sometimes have to be complicated to remedy what is wrong with the old legislation. Nobody doubts that the Bill improves the old legislation. Paragraph 4 of schedule 7 happened to catch my eye as I was listening to the previous speech. It states:
any unreasonable withholding of consent to the execution of preventive works under section 4(1)(a) of the 1957 Act shall have effect as an unreasonable withholding of consent to the execution of such works under paragraph (a) of subsection (2)
What hope have pensioners who have lived in the same house all their lives of making sense of such language? They have no hope at all. To remedy that problem, one must not only understand the law but ensure that those who need the law's protection know their rights. They can go to a solicitor or an agent, and some people do so. In my consultations with British Coal in Chesterfield, I was informed that the agents sometimes make the process take longer because of the complexity of the correspondence. Sometimes people resist going to an agent because they think that he will make more than they will out of the operation.
People need advise, and to make fun of whether there should be one advice centre or many is absurd. Advice is needed in the areas where people's properties will be undermined when that undermining occurs. That varies from coalfield to coalfield and from seam to seam. It is absurd to say that it will mean a bottomless pit of expenditure, when all we ask is that people should be able to take avantage of the rights that the Government are giving them under the Bill. I cannot imagine anyone whose house or business is threatened by British Coal's mining operations wanting to waste money. Such people want to find out their rights, take advantage of the Bill's

provisions, have the matter put right and put it behind them if they can. What possible motive could they have for wasting time on such a matter?
The Bill is so precisely drafted that, once it is enacted, the rights of claim will have to be granted. If people who make claims are not eligible, they will be dismissed. The Bill does not represent an endless right to time-wasting consultations. This issue contrasts sharply with all the lectures on consumer rights and the right to choose. Surely the basic right to choose is to know one's rights when they are threatened by a public authority which, as the Minister said, is legally engaged in excavating for coal reserves which, unhappily, happen to be under one's house or village.
The amendment is modest. Any hon. Member who has had, as I have, anxious constituents coming to see them, or who has visited areas where subsidence has occurred, will have seen the desperation on people's faces when they discover that the homes that they have bought are subsiding, with splits in the walls and gaps in the roof or the road, or the disconnection of mains supplies. Invershall special school for mentally handicapped children in Chesterfield, which I have just opened and which has just raised money for new facilities, has discovered that one of the seams of the Markham colliery would threaten that school.
It is no good speaking as though we were a convention of lawyers examining the matter. We are all lay persons discussing the drafting of the legislation, but we can speak confidently about how the Bill will be seen by those who need its provisions. We are representatives, not legal experts. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the amount of money involved would not only be trifling but might save British Coal and others from time-wasting negotiations with agents and solicitors who do not have the interests that the promoters of the new clause or British Coal might have. British Coal also wants to dispose of such matters quickly. It does not want them to drag on for months or even years with people using the services of agents. It wants a quick settlement.
The Bill gives a clear statement of British Coal's obligations and I have no doubt that it will wish to discharge them quickly and effectively. People need advice so that they can claim immediately. By the expeditious discharge of claimants' duties and rights, we can save public money. I hope that the Minister and the officials listening so attentively to the debate will reflect again. The new clause will be a minor addition which, if carried, will make the Bill real to the millions of people whom it intends to help and will not handicap the discharge of its provisions.

Mr. Robert Hayward: It gives me great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), as I referred in my maiden speech to his contributions as Member for Bristol, South-East. I now refer to a number of locations that he will readily identify because they are in and around Bristol.
In Committee, I criticised the fact that the amendment referred to first one centre. I do not believe that an advice centre would be warranted for the Bristol, north Somerset and south Gloucestershire area. I use the word "area" not only because I refer to my constituency but because I refer to the right hon. Gentleman's former constituency and that of the Minister. It is also your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The area has, on different occasions,


been mined for coal and some houses have been affected. I am sure that advice centres are not necessary and that people in my area would refer to centres based in south Wales—in Newport or Gwent, for instance. The vast majority of my constituents would not go to advice centres but would seek advice on subsidence, as they currently do, from other sources that are readily to hand.
As Committee members heard ad nauseam, I am currently dealing with cases in Kingswood and Hanham, on which I and other people are providing advice. That is how, even under the amended legislation, that advice would be provided. The Bill makes substantial improvements to existing legislation, particularly as a result of the amendments on arbitration which the Government accepted and which protect those pursuing subsidence problems.

Mr. Illsley: The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) says that the arbitration scheme will provide protection. Yes it will, but it will not provide advice. The arbiter will be required to adjudicate only on a dispute between the claimant and British Coal; he will not be able to give advice to the claimant or to British Coal.

Mr. Hayward: I accept that point, but I was saying that, in terms of strengthening the Bill, the arbitration right is the pinnacle of an overall pyramid of support given to individuals in those circumstances. I also asked in Committee—and I do not believe that the matter has been dealt with—why we should have free advice centres in this sector when we do not have them in relation to the Housing Defects Act 1984 or the right-to-buy legislation and other areas affecting large numbers of people. Advice centres are available in one form or another—why should they not cover this legislation as well as other legislation?

Mr. Harry Barnes: Might it not be that people may require advice on the procedures leading to the very arbitration that the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) says is worth while? Might they not want advice on whether to seek to make use of the arbitration procedure and some of the cases that they should put to arbitration?

Mr. Hayward: Yes, they could. However, as I said in Committee, since I have been a Member of Parliament—eight years—in the subsidence cases with which I have dealt under what is, compared with the Bill before us, totally inadequate legislation, advice has always been available to my constituents. If one follows the argument in terms of the legislation and the provision of advice centres, why should we not provide advice centres for every other piece of legislation that we pass in the House? We would have a myriad advice centres down every high street, replacing the current myriad building society outlets in every high street. We received clarification from the Minister in response to our debate on the subject in Committee. He said that he accepted the points that had been made and agreed with those of us who said that it was not necessary to have advice centres, but he made it clear that British Coal intended to provide a series of leaflets and videos available to people to whom individuals would naturally turn.
For those reasons, along with those already en-numerated by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), I believe that it is not necessary to accept the new clause.

Mr. Lofthouse: I am surprised about two issues. The first relates to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). I believe that he would think differently if he had had the opportunity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and I have had, to investigate in some depth the problems of subsidence and its administration in the Nottinghamshire district. In 1985 or 1986, members of the Select Committee on Energy and I went to Nottinghamshire, to Mansfield, to investigate the issues. We found that agents there were operating in a professional way—some of them were ex-Coal Board employees and some of them finished up in gaol. At that time, British Coal's total budget for subsidence, as shown in the annual report, was about £215 million. Some £200 million of that had been spent in Nottingham.
Last year, when my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central and I went to Nottingham, we had a chance to question the agents. Two of the agents, former Coal Board employees, did not leave British Coal on retirement or redundancy terms when they were in their middle fifties or sixties to take up consultancy posts, which seems to be the habit of some British Coal management these days. They left British Coal when they were young men. I asked them why. One of them said that he liked tennis and wanted more time to watch it. The other one was a bit more honest and said that he wanted to set up his own business because he saw that there was potential for it. He was right, because he and the other agents—I am not referring to the ones in gaol—finished up riding about in Rolls-Royces. There must have been a reasonable rake-off from the £200 million of the Coal Board's budget.
If any hon. Members should support the new clause, it should be those from Nottingham. Some of the people whose properties were, unfortunately, damaged had to rely on the agents and hope that they would receive the correct advice. However, the agents did not do too badly out of it. If the new clause were accepted, it would go a long way to cutting out many of the problems. If ever there was a need for advice centres anywhere, it is in Nottingham.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Let us be clear on one point. Nobody is seeking to justify some of the outrageous activities that went on among agents under the old legislation. The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) should look at the new clause, which my hon. Friends and I believe is unnecessary in the light of the Bill before us. It is in the context of the Bill that we now say that formal advice centres are not needed. We are not saying that advice is not necessary, but there are plenty of ways of providing it. However, we should set the matter in the context of the Bill, which protects our constituents.

Mr. Lofthouse: I would not for one moment suggest that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) would support the jiggery-pokery that went on in the early 1980s. The hon. Gentleman says that he does not feel that advice centres are necessary under the Bill. Perhaps the Department does not feel that they are necessary, but that was not always the case.
The report of the Select Committee on Energy, which the House ordered to be printed on 17 July 1990 and which deals with mining subsidence, states, in paragraph 22—and I am certain that my hon. Friend the Minister for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) well remembers this:
In its discussion paper of 1990 on dispute procedures, the Department of Energy raised the possibility of a Subsidence Advice Centre, staffed by chartered surveyors and solicitors with experience of subsidence damage, which would aim to provide advice to those who were dissatisfied with the way in which British Coal had dealt with their case."'
Many other witnesses before the Committee supported the Department's views and, arising out of that evidence, paragraph 24 of the Committee's report states:
Nevertheless, we support the Department of Energy's suggestion of an independent Subsidence Advice Centre on an experimental basis.
My second surprise resulted from the fact that the Bill did not contain that provision when the Department had been suggesting it. If that is the case, what is the argument of the Minister and his colleagues against the new clause?
Some of the agents are still operating in Nottingham—fortunately, my district and those around it do not have that problem. The only way to put an end to that practice is through the new clause. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will give serious consideration to it. The Select Committee believes that the new clause is necessary. and if anyone had had the privilege, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central and I had, of listening to the witnesses and researching the matter in depth, I am sure that he would agree that there was a need for the new clause and advice centres.

Mr. Meale: I have been greatly saddened to hear some of the comments of Conservative Members. I had thought that we were all at one on the need to clear up this problem once and for all with this Bill. I was particularly surprised by what the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) said. He knows about the despair that subsidence has caused and is continuing to cause people in his area, and he should not have made light of it; that was beneath the belt. Thousands of properties in his constituency continue to be damaged by this problem and that damage is getting worse all the time.
All we are proposing is an advice centre. The new clause does not stipulate whether it should be a national centre or whether there should be one in every coalfield area or in every district council area that includes mines. We want only a place where people can get advice—although the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) said that a centre was not needed in his constituency. Perhaps he thinks that a citizens advice bureau is the answer, but a centre such as the one that we propose would still be useful because on cases in his constituency CABs could refer to such a centre, wherever it might be. That is the whole purpose of setting one up.
The centre is not to be a centre of excellence for lawyers, solicitors, architects and surveyors; it is to be a place to which people can go for proper advice. I have the highest regard for CABs and local authorities, but people should not go to them for advice on this matter because they are not experts on it. To refer cases to such bodies would be to repeat what has already gone wrong: self-proclaimed experts have set themselves up to give advice.
People should be given advice free of charge. This Bill provides the opportunity of giving them that advice for as little as £50, plus VAT, which is now running at 17·5 per cent. If a person is badly advised on making a claim, he

may be involved in further expenses when pushing his claim to a successful conclusion. Cases which are not won or which go to arbitration may also involve additional costs, which shows that people need good advice from a centre of this sort.
8.45 pm
People ask where the money is to come from and whether the Secretary of State can afford it. Of course he can. The sum of £300 million has already been added to the price of coal that is produced in this country for the sole purpose of paying for subsidence damage claims. If the money had been set aside in a separate account accumulating interest, as it should have been, it would have provided hundreds of millions more pounds, thereby avoiding these difficulties. In some cases, the money has been used to close mines. If it can be used for that, it can certainly be used for the purpose that we propose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) rightly mentioned coal mining agents. Unless we set up an advice centre to give advice to people suffering from the horrendous difficulties of subsidence, the problem with agents will continue. Nothing in the Bill would curb the activities of these agents —quite the reverse. We must take this opportunity to set up a centre that will give people good advice on the most important matter in their lives—their homes. If we do not, we shall push them further in the direction of the so-called experts, some of whom know little more than how to read a slide rule.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thought that I was treating the new clause in a lighthearted way, but I shall not withdraw the compliments that I paid him on what he said.
If a person pays a fee to a solicitor, he at least has some protection in law. That should give the hon. Gentleman pause for thought about his demands for free advice. What happens to the claimant if that free advice is found to be inadequate?

Mr. Meale: My constituency is full of solicitors who have advised thousands of people with their claims. It has cost those people on average more than £1,000 per household, and most of their claims have been turned down. Many solicitors have used the legal aid system, up to a maximum £1,500 or £2,000, depending on the case, to advise people wrongly. The result is that the legal aid system has been stripped of the money—a bad system.
This is why we need an advice centre. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) pointed out, it would be cost-effective. British Coal should not be involved in legal disputes all the time. This Bill will allow agents the same freedom that they have enjoyed before. It is no good the hon. Member for Nottingham, South saying, to use his unfortunate terminology, that we would be dropping local authority money down a huge pit. British Coal's job is to dig and sell coal, not to fight legal cases.
Some years ago, when British Coal had a different attitude to this problem, its estates department in Nottinghamshire employed about six people, with four secretaries. Today it employs more than 50 advisers, architects and surveyors, and many more outside consultants, with a whole department of secretarial support. And the cost of all that is being added to the cost of digging coal in the Nottinghamshire coalfield.
People should not be dragged by their ears by unscrupulous agents who would like clients to make claims because they know that ultimately they will recover their own costs. Frequently, agents whose cases have hit hurdles have returned to constituents asking for another £500 so as to put together several cases and return to the courts to fight one test case. That is all nonsense——

Mr. Hayward: By how many people would the new clause reduce the number of people working on this matter in the estates department; and how many people would be employed in the advice centres to which the hon. Gentleman refers?

Mr. Meale: First, if the right approach had been adopted, there might not have been any need for the Bill. Secondly, I think that the new clause would lead to a considerable reduction of problems in the coalfield. The issue is whether my constituents and those of other hon. Members are being correctly advised on whether they have a valid claim that should be pursued in the courts. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to provide a system of arbitration that will reduce the number of claims that otherwise would be decided by the courts. An advice centre would enable potential claimants to receive proper advice and thereby ensure that they were not dragged down paths leading to litigation to the benefit of surveyors, agents and, in many instances, solicitors. The Bill could produce a beano for solicitors and surveyors, and we must be careful to ensure that that is not the result of its being placed on the statute book.
Many people do not know what is going on. It is all very well for Conservative Members to say that it will be easy under the proposed legislation for people clearly to understand what they should do. It has been said that they will have only to pop along to their local authority and pick up a leaflet that will tell them exactly how to proceed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield said, that is nonsense. When most ordinary people read our legislation, they consider it to be gobbledegook; they cannot understand it. The same can be said of the forms that they are asked to complete, whether they are handed them by local authority officials or by the staff of CABs.
People need advice and they should not be led into spending significant sums to obtain advice from solicitors or agents. We are legislating to overcome a problem that has had a considerable effect on people's lives in coal-mining areas. We must ensure that a system is put in place that enables them to receive honest and decent advice that will assist them in pursuing their rights. I am not saying that the Government should be prepared to hurl loads of money into a bottomless pit. Money is available, and in any event we are talking about a pittance when it is set against the global sum involved under the present system. We should not agree to the enactment of legislation without providing a system for people to obtain the advice that they deserve.

Mr. Illsley: I shall not detain the House long in supporting the new clause. I reiterate the argument of my right hon. and hon. Friends that there is clearly a need for an advice centre. We are introducing new legislation, but the average man in the street's understanding of it will be no greater than his knowledge of the legislation that preceded it. Under the old legislation, he had to seek

advice before pursuing a claim. His position will be the same under the proposed legislation, for he will still have to seek advice. He will have to contend with time limits and other requirements.
Members who represent mining areas deal with case after case of mining subsidence in which people are in dispute with British Coal. Many of those people do not understand how to make a claim. It became clear that most of the members of the Committee that considered the Bill were unsure of the time-limit provisions. It is hoped, however, that the Bill will settle many of the complications. It is obvious that many of our constituents need clear and independent advice. At present, they have the options of an estate agent, a surveyor or a solicitor. These people are professionals and they charge professional fees. In other words, they are costly to the claimant or to British Coal.
It is unfortunate that not all the professionals have relevant qualifications. The average solicitor who practises in the high street will have no knowledge of mining subsidence. He will have even less knowledge of mining engineering. If claimants seek advice from some of the professionals, they will receive bad advice. Many solicitors will merely employ others and thereby add to the costs. Many advisers are unqualified. For want of a better term, they are cowboys. They saw a niche in the market, they filled it and they made a decent living.
Many advisers have a clear interest in prolonging claims so that they can make as much money as possible out of them. In Committee I referred to a constituent who negotiated himself the greater part of a claim with British Coal. However, he also employed an estate agent. My constituent became frustrated in the course of pursuing his claim and accordingly arrived at a settlement with British Coal. He received X thousands of pounds in the sale of the property. When the agent was informed that his services were no longer required because the claim had been settled, the agent said that he would settle his fee on the basis of the settlement that he could have arrived at with British Coal and not on the actual settlement. If that is not a waste of public money and an example of money being thrown into a bottomless pit, I do not know what is.
As I have said, ordinary people have little experience of reading legislation and understanding it. Many of them have difficulties in completing forms and submitting claims to British Coal. Many people cannot afford independently to obtain advice from estate agents and surveyors.
The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) said that people in his constituency would not need advice on subsidence. He explained that mining in the area that he represents was discontinued a long time ago. The hon. Gentleman should know that I have dealt with and assisted old miners in the St. Paul's area of Bristol who have sought compensation. He might be surprised when he learns of the extent of the need for advice in north Somerset and the St. Paul's district of Bristol.
The hon. Member for Kingswood referred to the growth of housing advice centres. We already have housing advice centres. Advice on right-to-buy legislation will usually be obtained from a local authority that is dealing with the sale of property, so that that need for advice is filled. Solicitors who undertake conveyancing and have a specific knowledge of it can also deal with right-to-buy legislation. However, the average conveyancing solicitor will have no knowledge of mining subsidence.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) talked about solid fuel showrooms. They are funded by British Coal, and any advice they offer can hardly be regarded as independent or relevant. They exist only to sell solid fuel.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Watch it. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) has at least 10 O-levels. He has an 11 th perhaps in subsidence, but goodness knows how.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Those who support the new clause say that they wish to ensure that people will be advised on how to go about making a claim. That is all very well, but the real work begins after that stage. That is why we are not enthusiastic about the clause. Technical advice will not be required initially. Subsequently, a surveyor will be needed to establish the size of the claim. The new clause will not redress half the grievances to which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) have referred. Opposition Members are entirely missing the point in speaking in support of the clause.

Mr. Illsley: As I think someone said, if I have 10 O-levels, what am I doing in this place? Subsection (2) provides:
The advice centres shall offer, free of charge, advice to all claimants in need of legal or technical advice on any matter relating to coal subsidence.
The clause is not restricted to the making of a claim. New clause 2 covers legal and technical advice.
I was referring to the Select Committee report from which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) quoted. I shall quote two lines to which he did not refer:
Such a Centre would not attempt mediation but would give expert advice to claimants on their rights and advise them on their best course of action … The Department stressed the need for the Centre to be 'quite independent of British Coal'.
Time and again we have seen statements that any advice centre should be independent. The Select Committee went on to recommend that advice centres should be set up.
The advice centre could have available all the information on mining subsidence such as mining plans and records. In Standing Committee we debated the idea of a register. Perhaps the advice centres could build up such a register. There has been substantial debate on where the advice centre should be located. As South Yorkshire already has the South Yorkshire mining advisory service, which is funded by the local authorities, there is no reason why that should not become a national mining advisory centre for the rest of the country.

9 pm

Mr. Andy Stewart: I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's latter comment. Can he tell the House what the advisory centre in South Yorkshire does? Does it take claims from claimants and process them through to completion, or does it just advise people to get a solicitor or a surveyor to take up the case?

Mr. Illsley: It does not advise them to get a solicitor to take up the case. It provides advice. That was a simplistic response to a simplistic question, "What does an advice centre do?" The advice centre gives advice to local authorities or to anyone else who needs advice about the geology and mining in the area.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has not answered my question properly. Does it take claims right through to completion? New clause 2 tells us that that is what the advice centre does.

Mr. Illsley: I do not think that the advice centre takes claims through to completion. New clause 2 states:
The advice centres shall issue guidelines on the making of claims
and shall offer legal and technical advice.
It does not say that an advice centre will take a claim from an individual and pursue it with British Coal, although there is no reason why the advice centre for which we are asking should not do that if it were given that responsibility.

Mr. Meale: An organisation called COALS—the Consortium of Authorities Liaising on Subsidence—has just produced a report which shows that 33,500 people in the area have properties which may have been damaged by subsidence. In Standing Committee, the Minister said that thousands of claims which were disallowed because of the six-year rule for mining having ceased under those properties could now be reviewed. That is a legal and technical point. Many people in the area in which COALS operates need advice on that. Such advice is not freely available or necessarily understood by solicitors in the area. It takes an expert who understands the legislation to give such advice.

Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend makes his own point. I conclude by repeating that we need an advice centre. We have one in South Yorkshire, and we do not have the same problems that exist in north Nottinghamshire where agents have been taking money fraudulently. That goes some way towards showing that the advice centre in South Yorkshire has removed that problem and that South Yorkshire is better equipped than north Nottinghamshire to deal with such claims.

Mr. Harry Barnes: One of the main objections from Conservative Members to an advice centre seems to be the objection to the free provision of advice, instead of advice purchased from solicitors and others who are assumed to be expert, in that legal action could be taken if that advice turned out to be wrong. I do not agree. A great deal of advice that is freely available is not immune from legal action and is often found to be of considerable value. In the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), there is a citizens advice bureau, an unemployed workers' centre and a law centre that all provide advice and, if pressed, might have to deal with some aspects of coal mining subsidence. However, this is not within these bodies' areas of expertise.
There are also plenty of solicitors and many agents who take up coal mining cases. At my surgeries in Chesterfield, which is at the centre of a wide area, people are much less likely to complain about the citizens advice bureaux or the centres for unemployed workers, or the law centres, than about solicitors. They wonder whether they should complain against agents, or against agents together with the corporation, acting under some kind of sweetheart agreement that must be broken through. This new clause would make provision for invaluable advice.
Hon. Members asked where the advice centres would be located. We were told that advice might not be available in the Bristol area if a centre was established in Wales. Presumably the constituents of my hon. Friend the member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) would be provided for,


as there are massive subsidence problems in their area. That does not seem to me to be any argument against this proposal. So far as the people of Bristol are concerned, presumably the problem of the lack of immediate discussions as the basis of advice could be overcome.
Many people fill in forms stating in detail the problems that they experience. Such people receive information and advice on the basis of the details provided, and sometimes outworkers are available to deal with specific problems. In many areas, detailed forms are submitted with a view to obtaining various types of information, and securing various types of expertise. Approaches are made in this way to the local government ombudsman and the local land registry. Why should not an advice centre operate on the same basis? A physical presence is not the only possibility.
I shall conclude by repeating a point that I made in an earlier intervention: that advice centres would have a valuable role to play in connection with the arbitration procedure for which this legislation provides. The creation of an arbitration procedure is an important advance, but we need to know more about when it will be triggered. People pushing for its use need expert advice. They need to know whether they are likely to benefit by going down that road, rather than by accepting some other procedure.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I want to tell the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) that we already have advice centres, but they are not nearly good enough. I refer to the surgeries that Members of Parliament hold on Saturday mornings. Members are not qualified as surveyors, architects and solicitors. They must call for expert advice. For years, I have had a bellyful of dealing at my Saturday surgeries with mining subsidence problems. They hold everything else up. An elderly lady may have a problem that she thinks is as high as a mountain, but, for me, dealing with it may involve merely a telephone call. But mining subsidence problems get in the way even of those cases. We are seriously considering asking the Government to tell the corporation in no uncertain terms that there must be provision for proper advice surgeries.
There has been mention, especially by Opposition Members, of the crooks. I know plenty of them. I am not talking only about solicitors or agents, but about board officials, too. They have gone down the line—and good luck to them. That is where they should be, for what they have done to our constituents.
When someone goes to his Member of Parliament's surgery with a subsidence problem, it is because the agent has given his advice, and the board has said, "We reject this claim out of hand." The constituent therefore tells his Member of Parliament, "You are my last resort." What do I do? I send the case to the Under-Secretary of State—and he sends it back to the board. It is a vicious circle.
I am a bit disappointed because, in Committee, one Conservative Member supported the idea of advice centres, but he has been burned off and is not present in the Chamber today. However, after the next general election he will probably be able to find a job as a legal adviser at one of the centres that will be set up if the Government do not. He can be assured of a job when he loses his seat at the next election because he knows all the problems, and spoke about them in Committee. He went along with us

then, but other Conservative Members have let the side down. They let down the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) in Committee—and again today, because they stopped him supporting us this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) comes into the Chamber from time to time, in the same way that he attended the Committee from time to time. It galled me when I read in a Derbyshire paper that the hon. Member for Amber Valley was going to do it all. He said to himself, "I shall get on the Committee for a start, and then I'll show them." He did not show them, because he did not damn well attend the Committee. He was hardly ever there. When he was there, all he did was to snipe at the Opposition's proposals for changing or adding to the Bill.

Mr. Andy Stewart: rose——

Mr. Haynes: Just a minute—I am on my feet. The hon. Gentleman will ask a question if I say he can, because Mr. Deputy Speaker gave me the Floor.
Constituents come to my surgery who are totally illiterate. They cannot help that—they were born like it. [Laughter.] What a lot they are, on the Conservative Benches. I am talking about a serious problem and all that Conservative Members can do is laugh—a serious problem about someone who might be illiterate and who owns a property that has been damaged by coal mining, and who needs advice. Conservative Members think that is a big joke. That is the Tories, through and through.

Mr. Stewart: rose——

Mr. Haynes: No, I will not give way now. The hon. Gentleman has flipping well upset me, so he can sit down.

Mr. Stewart: I would not want to upset the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman will not be able to do so after the next general election, because I shall have retired. Nor will he be able to get a job in one of the advice centres that we will set up after we have won the next general election.
The important point is that constituents who have that problem need proper advice. For years, they have been kicked from pillar to post, and all the fiddling has been going on.

Mr. Stewart: We agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman may agree, but he does not understand the seriousness of the situation. He wants to talk to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield and he needs to talk to me. We have had real problems in my constituencies. It has been a nightmare. I have had a bellyful. I have had enough and I do not want any more.
We want a Bill that will sort the problem out so that it does not go on for ever and a day. The advice centre is one of the steps that should be taken to deal with this problem.

Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Haynes: He ain't half pressurising me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I might as well give him one tick.

Mr. Stewart: I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) for outlining what is a fact—my constituency is half a mile down the road from the hon.


Gentleman's and, like him, I have hundreds of people coming to ask me for advice. At the moment, if there were advice centres—disregarding this improved Bill—what could they achieve? What could they advise our constituents? Very little, because there has been no way to resolve disputes unless one went to the Lands Tribunal, and we both know how expensive that was. Under the new Bill we shall have arbitration.

Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman is talking a load of rubbish, just as he did in Committee. We have not got the Bill yet and we do not know how it will work.

Mr. Stewart: We soon will have.

Mr. Haynes: I am on my feet. Shut him up, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Stewart: Answer the question.

Mr. Haynes: Well, I ask you. I am trying to answer the question and he is yawping at me from his seat. I thought that you would have told him about that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall have to tell him. I want the hon. Gentleman to be quiet and to listen.
The Bill is not law yet.

Mr. Stewart: It will be soon.

Mr. Haynes: Yes, but it will be kicked around a bit down yonder, and it will be changed down yonder, I can assure the hon. Gentleman about that. They have already set themselves up down there and they know what has been going on here and in Committee. So they will do their job. The Bill is riot law and when it becomes law we do not know how it will work out. We are guessing in the dark.
We know what experiences we have had in the past—right up to the present time—and it is a serious situation. We are trying to put that problem right and so we need proper advice to individuals in our constituencies—all constituencies where there is mining subsidence.
People can be fobbed off by anyone. They have been fobbed off in the past by the board because it did not want to pay out any money for compensation and repairs. It has been a rough ride and I am looking forward to the problem being sorted out once and for ever.
Wherever the advice centre might be—I could not care less, as long as it does the job that we want it to do on behalf of the constituents who have this problem—it is only one step towards sorting out the problem.
Thank you, Mr.Deputy Speaker. I have enjoyed my contribution to the debate.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We had a similar debate in Standing Committee, although I do not think that we had quite the intervention from the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes)——

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was a contribution to this Bill, not an intervention. I did not intervene on any hon. Member—I got up to make a contribution to the Bill in the hope that the Minister was listening and would take on board what I and my colleagues suggested.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It was an intervention in the debate, but not in someone else's speech. However, there were plenty of other occasions in Committee when the

hon. Gentleman told us about his constituents. This evening we learned that some people are born illiterate. That was a new aspect.
The hon. Member for Ashfield mentioned a serious issue—many people find it difficult to understand legislation, however well drafted. The call for advice centres misses the point. We should not assist people to negotiate a complex chain of events; instead we should simplify the legislative process. A claimant would not then need to read and digest an Act to make a successful claim, any more than a pensioner needs to understand the Finance Acts to make a successful claim for his pension.
I agree that the legislation that we inherited is entirely inconsistent and complex. We are dealing with two separate Acts of Parliament. It is a matter of regret that the 1975 Act was not used as an opportunity to clear up some of the ambiguities and inconsistencies between that legislation and the 1957 Act. We are consolidating the legislation and simplifying the process.
When one considers the chain of events for a householder making a claim, one sees how much easier things will be if the Bill is passed. The householder will be notified individually that his property may be damaged by subsidence. At the same time he will receive a copy of my Department's leaflet tellling him how to go about making a claim. If subsequently he notices damage to his property, he will know that it may have been caused by subsidence because he has been notified, and he will therefore make a claim to British Coal.
Unlike the present position, with two separate Acts of Parliament and two separate claims which can be made, in future there will be only one Act and only one claim form. In response, British Coal will have to say whether it accepts the claim and, if so, what remedial action it proposes to take. If there is a dispute due to rejection of the claim, or a dispute about the nature of the remedial action, the householder can refer the matter to arbitration. British Coal will send all claimants the details of the new scheme so that householders will be aware that this option is open to them and that it will cost only £50, which will be repayable in the event of a successful claim.
If the householder decides that he has a dispute with British Coal, all that he needs to do is to submit the form to the institute, outlining the nature of the dispute. That does not have to be in technical language; specialist advice will not be needed. The arbitrator may call for specialist and technical advice and may visit the property in question, or he may sit with one or two independent technical assessors. He may even commission an independent examination of the subject matter of the dispute. British Coal, not the householder, will bear the costs involved. At no point in the process will the claimant necessarily need any technical or specialist advice.

Mr. Meale: Does the Minister not agree that when a constituent seeks advice he does so about the single most important matter in his life—his home, which represents an enormous financial outlay, and on which his whole future depends? If, therefore, a householder believes that his house has suffered damage, he or she will obtain advice to supplement the application for compensation. That will cost money. Unless advice centres are established, householders may be pushed down the same path as they now go down, with solicitors who do not know the circumstances of the case handling the matter, with surveyors trying to get money out of householders and


pushing them towards making a claim, and with agents who are in it only for the money. The purpose of advice centres is to avoid those pitfalls.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am still not clear what the role of the advice centres would be. It does not seem to me sensible to spend money on technically trained people advising claimants that they should fill in a claim form, or to pay for lawyers to advise people that their dispute should be referred to the Institute of Arbitrators scheme. The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) referred to agents and to the fact that in the past they enriched themselves by feeding off the cash compensation that was paid out. I have heard about that problem. Compensation was not tied to the necessary repairs to a property, but that system has now ended and it is not reproduced in the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Clause 36 also provides that, if a householder needed to employ specialist advisors such as structural engineers, any expenses reasonably incurred could be reimbursed to the claimant. I emphasise that only expenses that have been reasonably incurred can be reimbursed, so unnecessary fees and expenses claimed by an agent would not be reimbursable.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I think that it would be helpful if the Minister were to set the issue in its proper context because most of the Opposition's criticism today has been as though we were dealing with the old set-up. Under the old system, the claimant had to prove that the damage to his home was the result of subsidence and the Coal Board could simply say that it was not. Now the boot is on the other foot. That is a fundamental difference. British Coal must prove that the damage is not caused by subsidence. The burden is not on the poor claimant, which caused most of the problem. It has all been changed, and if the system is accepted that is surely a better context for the debate.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend emphasises eloquently the point that I was trying to make earlier. We know that at present we have an unsatisfactory system. There are ambiguities and gaps in the legislation and there are inconsistencies between the two Acts, so it is hardly surprising that people are confused. The thrust of the Bill is to improve, to clarify and to simplify so as to obviate the need for specialist and technical advice.

Mr. Meale: The problem with the reply that the Minister gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) is that the law is such that all the thousands of people are still represented by agents. Perhaps I can help the Minister. To get us out of this hole, in which agents are handling thousands of cases, could the Minister say that local authorities in coal-mining areas could set up agencies to act on behalf of the thousands of residents and thus deal with the problem at one stroke?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Those thousands of agents may find that their expenses are not reimbursable under the provisions of clause 36. However, in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, yes, of course, if local authorities feel the need to provide additional services, not only are they free to do so, but British Coal has assured me that it

will provide assistance and information to them. Under clause 45, the corporation is obliged to inform local authorities of its mining plans. British Coal has also confirmed to me that it will make available to local authorities and to others their new internal manual of procedure, which is sometimes called one of the Brown Books and which will be prepared in the light of the new legislation. That document has not been available before.
British Coal has also offered to make available such things as its new internal training video, which may be of interest to local authority staff and it has offered to provide additional information and literature on an ad hoc basis. Against the background of increased information and simplified procedure, I see little justification for the significant expense of advice centres along the lines envisaged in the new clause.
I must also observe that the provision in the new clause that the advice centres should be funded by the Government is wholly inappropriate. In line with the "polluter pays" principle, it would be for the industry to meet any such additional costs, if they were justified. In this case, the costs are not justified and I invite the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Barron: It may have been necessary to change the wording of the provision so that a proposal that was rejected in Committee could be debated at a later stage. I understand that the Minister has had some problems about advice centres, especially as his predecessor, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), left him with a Department of Energy that felt that we should have advice centres to deal with coal mining subsidence.
Conservative Members have shifted ground in their argument in Committee and here tonight about whether to have one or more advice centres. The House has to decide whether we should have advice centres. One view is that people do not need advice. Those who hold that view have a lot of faith in British Coal and how the new system will work. The system has yet to be put in place and cannot be put in place until the Bill has been debated in the other place.
There may be some adherence to the protection of the entrepreneurs who have set up business in north Nottinghamshire and in Derbyshire to deal with mining subsidence. If people could go to a comprehensive advice centre and could receive advice that dealt with more than the nuts and bolts of the Bill, the entrepreneurs would lose trade.
I do not want to anticipate a later debate, but I must point out to the Minister that later amendments refer to the omission of people's right to go to the Lands Tribunal. In Committee, we were howled down by Conservative Members because we tabled amendments to remove the tribunal from such cases on the basis of its costliness and ineffectiveness in dealing with problems. We were told by Conservative Members that people should have a fundamental right to go to the Lands Tribunal if they felt that it was necessary, notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill. If that is the case, people could go to an advice centre without their incomes being preyed on when they were seeking advice.
People may go further than the comprehensive arbitration under the Bill. They may want to get advice in relation to further legal matters, but the advice about
which Conservative Members spoke in Committee may not be available. I hope that, although the Minister does not want to consider our proposal now, the other place will consider it. People should be able to get advice to ensure that, when they pursue a claim against British Coal, they have sound advice which is not expensive and which puts them on the right road towards getting compensation for damage.
In view of our debate, and because I hope that the other place will consider our proposal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

DISCRETIONARY PAYMENTS IN LIEU

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 7, line 8, at end insert—
'(7A) Subject to subsection (7B) below, the Corporation are to be regarded as acting unreasonably in refusing any request falling within subsection (7)(a) above which is received before they have begun to execute remedial works.
(7B) Subsection (7A) above does not apply where—

(a) the Corporation have acceded to another such request made by another person;
(b) the execution of remedial works by a person other than the Corporation would significantly impede the discharge of their remedial obligation in respect of one or more neighbouring properties; or
(c) where the damage has rendered the property structurally unsound, the execution of such works by the person by whom the request was made or, as the case may be, by the person specified in the request would be unlikely to restore the structural integrity of the property,

and (in any case) as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the request the Corporation give notice to that effect to the person by whom the request was made.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2 and 11.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It has always been the Government's view that a claimant should have the right to use his own contractor except in certain special circumstances. Our original approach was that British Coal should be able to elect to make a payment in lieu to enable a claimant to use his own contractor. Clause 8 also stipulated that British Coal should not unreasonably refuse a request to make such an election.
It was the view of many hon. Members in Committee that such an approach might allow too much discretion to British Coal. So I readily agreed to reconsider the matter to ensure that the claimant's position was safeguarded beyond doubt. Therefore, I have tabled a new subsection which, I hope, will meet the point. Its effect is to limit British Coal's right to refuse a claimant permission to use his own contractor to three specified circumstances.
The first circumstance is the obvious one of where British Coal receives two requests for the same property. The second circumstance is where the execution of remedial works by a person other than the corporation would significantly impede the discharge of the corporation's remedial obligations. An obvious example is a block of flats that has been damaged. It would not be sensible to allow each part of that block of flats to be repaired by a separate contractor. That could create the absurd position that one side of a party wall was being tackled by one contractor and the other side was being repaired by another.
The third circumstance is where the contractor does not have the necessary expertise to repair seriously damaged property. For example, if a property is affected by fissuring—of which I saw one example in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart)—it may require highly specialised repair work. It would not be in anyone's interest to allow the work to be done by a company that was less than competent. Of course, if British Coal declined permission for one contractor, it might be possible to find another, but this is an important example of where the right of the claimant should be fettered.
The other amendment in this group is what parliamentary counsel call a chiming amendment. It ensures consistency of phraseology throughout the Bill. With those explanations, I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Barron: Once again, I thank the Government for responding to the arguments made in Committee and amending the clause to change the presumption in favour of the claimant's choice. I can see that our arguments have borne fruit.
Opposition Members believe that people should be able to opt to carry out repairs themselves or select a contractor to do the work, unless there is specific and good reason for British Coal to do the work itself. The Minister gave the example of a block of flats. That is common sense. There might be other cases in which British Coal would have to show specific and good reason why the claimant should not do the work. I am sure the Minister has been advised on the matter.
The intention of our amendments in Committee and the Government's amendments tonight—which we are pleased to support—is to stop people being forced to wait for repairs to be done to their property and consequently to live in damaged property for longer than necessary. On that basis, we gladly support the Government amendments.

Mr. Meale: I appreciate the Minister's argument about a block of flats, but what about a street of houses? Would the use of contractors be restricted in the same way for work on a portion of a street of houses?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It may be more efficient in some cases to use a single contractor for a whole terrace, but that would not fit into the definition in the amendment. We have dealt only with cases where it would be absurdly wasteful, difficult or impractical to use various private sector contractors.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 7, line 10, leave out
'to make an election for the purposes of this section'
and insert
'falling within subsection (7) above which is'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 16

STOP NOTICES WHERE FURTHER DAMAGE IS LIKELY

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 11, line 42, leave out '("the original damage")'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move, amendment No. 4, in page 12, line 14, at end insert—
'(2A) It shall be the duty of the Corporation to specify in such a notice such works (if any) as are required in order to


render the damaged property reasonably fit to be used for the purposes for which it was used immediately before the damage became evident, not being—

(a) emergency works; or
(b) works the execution of which is not reasonably practicable in all the circumstances of the case.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 5, 10 and 12.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Perhaps I should briefly give the background to this important, substantive amendment. Waddilove and many others recognised that stop notices were sensible and necessary, but he also said that, while a stop notice is in force, interim repairs should be carried out to a high standard. The amendment is designed to achieve that.
Amendment No. 4 will ensure that, where a stop notice is in force, works must be undertaken to ensure that the property is "reasonably fit" to be used for the purpose for which it was used immediately before the damage became apparent. The wording comes form the Coal-mining (Subsidence) Act 1957. The standard is not as high as that which we apply to full repairs, which must now be done to the reasonable satisfaction of the claimant. As an interim measure pending final repairs, the amendment provides a sensible advance and should commend itself to the House.

Mr. Barron: We debated whether we should lay down certain criteria on the use of stop notices and I am pleased that the Department has taken the issue on board and produced these amendments.
Amendment No. 5 removes from clause 16 any reference to Lands Tribunal, about which there was also great debate in Committee. We are pleased that references to Land Tribunal will be removed from clause 16 by this group of amendments and from clause 17 by the next group of amendments. Therefore, British Coal cannot send to the Lands Tribunal rather than to the arbiter for the issue or revocation of a stop notice. We support the amendments because they will make the Bill more comprehensive than it was on Second Reading.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made, No. 5, in page 13, line 16, leave out subsection (8).—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 17

REVOCATION AND REVIEW OF STOP NOTICES

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 13, line 23, after 'if' insert `—(a)'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 7 to 9.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have already said that stop notices are necessary in certain eventualities. The Waddilove committee recommended their continuation and an annual review of stop notices. That has been incorporated in the Bill. Furthermore, if ground stability is expected for 18 months ahead, stop notices need to be revoked.
It was pointed out in Committee that there was no absolute time limit for revoking a stop notice; therefore it is in principle possible even with annual reviews that stop notices could continue in force for many years if

continuing underground mining was possible. For that reason, I introduced these amendments to put an absolute three-year time limit on stop notices. Henceforth they will be allowed to continue beyond that period only if the claimant or any other person does not object.
It may be sensible for all concerned to delay final repairs beyond that, but everyone's consent is needed for any further delay. I believe that a three-year period strikes the right balance between the claimant, who does not want to wait too long for those final repairs, and the British Coal Corporation, which might otherwise incur unnecessary repeat expenditure on repairs to a property or a house which may be damaged again. With that explanation, I trust that the House will accept the amendment.

Mr. Barron: I welcome the claimants' right to ask for a stop notice to be revoked after three years. In Committee we tabled an amendment to clauses 16 and 17 for the time limit to be six months less than that. We felt that it would not be right for the British Coal Corporation to keep issuing stop notices. Our timetable would have been two and a half years as opposed to three years. The Minister has clarified the criteria and the time scale.
We welcome the amendment and hope that such notices will not be used very often and problems will be sorted out much quicker than in the past. British Coal will know that the issuing of stop notices will not keep the devil away from the door—it will have to take action. British Coal would have a maximum of three years and then it would have to sort out the damage to a person's property.

Mr. Rowlands: In Committee I raised the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) had previously raised about the incredible stop notice that went on for years. I welcome the amendment proposed by the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 13, line 26, at end insert
'or
(b) at any time after the end of the period of three years beginning with the relevant date, the claimant and any other person interested request the Corporation to revoke it.'.

No. 8, in page 13, line 47, at end insert—
'(3A) In subsection (1)(b) above "the relevant date", in relation to a stop notice, means—

(a) the date on which the stop notice was given; or
(b) where one or more previous stop notices had been
given in respect of the whole or any part of the damage, the date on which that notice or, as the case may be, the first of those notices was given.

(3B) The Secretary of State may by order substitute for the period mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above (whether as originally enacted or as previously amended under this subsection) such other period as he thinks fit.'.

No. 9, in page 14, line 5, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 18

EFFECT OF FURTHER DAMAGE

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 15, line 4, after 'interested', insert—
'(ff) any stop notice given to any person with respect to the original damage shall have effect in relation to the combined damage as if there were specified in it


as excepted works such works (if any) as may be specified in a notice given to that person by the Corporation;'.

No. 11, in page 15, line 5, leave out
'reference to remedial works in section 8(8)'
and insert
'references to remedial works in section 8(7A) and (8)'.

No. 12, in page 15, line 12, at end insert—
'(4A) It shall be the duty of the Corporation to specify in a notice under subsection (3)(ff) above such works (if any) as are required in order to render the damaged property reasonably fit to be used for the purposes for which it was used immediately before the original damage became evident, not being—

(a) emergency works; or
(b) works the execution of which is not reasonably practicable in all the circumstances of the case.'.—[Mr. Eleathcoat-Amoryl

Clause 27

CROP LOSS PAYMENTS

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 19, line 10, leave out
'taking by the Corporation of remedial action'
and insert
'discharge by the Corporation of their remedial obligation'.

No. 13, in page 19, line 14, after 'amount', insert '(if any)'.

No. 14, in page 19, line 17, leave out 'section' and insert 'subsection'.

No. 15, in page 19, line 27, at end insert—
'(2A) For each year or part of a year falling within the period mentioned in subsection (1) above, the Corporation shall be under an obligation to make to the occupier of the unit a payment of the amount (if any) given by the formula—
P = R-S
where—

P is the amount payable under this subsection;
R is any amount by which the occupier's yield from land used for pasture in that year or part of a year is less than it might reasonably have been expected to have been if the subsidence damage had not occurred;
S is any amount by which his expenses in respect of land used for pasture are less than they might reasonably have been expected to have been if the damage had not occurred.'.

No. 16, in page 19, line 33, leave out `the Corporation had elected' and insert
'an election by the Corporation'.

No. 17, in page 19, line 36, at end insert
'and there shall be disregarded for the purposes of subsection (2A) above any use of land for pasture which was or would have been so used after such an election as is mentioned in paragraph (b) above.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 28

PAYMENTS FOR TENANT FARMERS

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 20, line 26, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 29

COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO MOVEABLE PROPERTY

Amendments made: No. 30, in page 20, line 46, leave our from 'if' to end of line 47 and insert—

'(a) the damage to the moveable property had been attributable to the negligence of the Corporation; and
(b) subject to subsection (2) below, liability for any consequential loss resulting from the damage were excluded'.

No. 31, in page 21, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) Subsection (1)(b) above shall not apply to a claim made by a small firm where—

(a) the moveable property was used wholly or partly for the purposes of the firm; and
(b) the property affected by subsidence damage was property as respects which one or more notices had been or should have been given by the Corporation under section 44(1) below;

and in determining the amount (if any) of so much of a payment as is payable by virtue of this subsection regard shall be had to the rules of law relating to remoteness and the mitigation of losses.'.

No. 32, in page 21, line 6, leave out 'situated'.

No. 33, in page 21, line 8, after land', insert
'or, in Scotland, was on any land without lawful authority'.

No. 34, in page 21, line 15, leave out `any damage to' and insert `the damage to the'.

No.35, in page 21, line 23, at end insert
'small firm" has the meaning which would be given by section (Compensation for consequential losses of small firms) (7) above if the reference to the time when the property is affected by subsidence damage were a reference to the time when damage is caused to the moveable property'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 30

COMPENSATION FOR DEATH OR DISABLEMENT

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 21, line 46, after 'as', insert 'would have been payable'.

No. 37, in page 22, line 10, leave out
'has the same meaning as in section 29 above'
and insert
'includes any act or omission which would, if the death or disablement had been caused by the negligence of the Corporation, have constituted fault for the purposes of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 31

EXISTING BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES OR WORKS

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 23, line 15, leave out
'shall not be deemed to be'
and insert
'are not to be regarded as'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 36

REIMBURSEMENT OF SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANTS' EXPENSES

Mr. Barron: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 28, line 23, at end insert—
'(1A) The Corporation shall also pay any costs or expenses reasonably incurred by the householder served notices under Clause 44 subsections (4) and (6) below.'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 19.
tAmendment No. 26, in page 28, line 31, at end insert—
'(2A) Subsection (2) above will apply to costs or expenses reasonably incurred by a local authority acting on behalf of claimants, or as landlords.'.
Government amendments Nos. 20 and 21.

Mr. Barron: In view of the absence of provision for advice centres, we ought to consider seriously amendment No. 27. Members of the Committee will remember our debate on amendment No. 27 and the expense of a pre-mining survey. People would have the right to money to have their property inspected prior to undermining after


a notice had been issued. It would be proper to help property owners with their expenses should they seek advice on what to do when successive notices are served on them by British Coal. They will probably turn to an expert for an opinion on the best course of action, and the costs incurred should be reimbursed.
In certain circumstances—if mining took place, the property was damaged and the claim was successful—the expenses would be reimbursed. Unfortunately, however, if mining is not the cause of damage, if claimants take expert advice because of successive notices and undermining does not take place or if there is insufficient damage to warrant a successful claim, the claimants would not be paid for any advice they took. An advice centre would have solved many of those problems.
Amendment No. 26 extends reimbursable costs to include local authorities should they act on behalf of a claimant or take action as property owners. It does not seem right to exclude expenses incurred by local authorities when they are successful claimants. Unlike housing associations, local authorities have been given much responsibility for public housing in the past five to ten years. Housing associations can claim expenses incurred for legal advice on subsidence damage to their properties.
Although local authorities may be successful in claiming damages against British Coal, they are not entitled to legal expenses. Most local authorities have a legal department, but they have a wide and varied agenda, and if they are involved in ensuring that claims against British Coal are successful, they cannot work on other matters. It seems unfair that local authorities should lose in this respect and not be able to claim their rightful legal expenses for successful claims against British Coal. I hope that the Minister will look seriously at amendment No. 26.
Amendment No. 27 deals with the fact that people will seek advice should successive notices be laid against their property. In the absence of an advice centre, they should be protected when they have incurred reasonable costs in protecting their property.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Amendment No. 26 refers to expenses incurred by local authorities as landlords. I assure the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) that nothing in clause 36 prevents a local authority from recovering the costs that it has reasonably incurred in pursuing a claim as a landlord. The hon. Gentleman may wonder why we cannot make that explicit in the clause, just to be on the safe side. That could be counter-productive, because the clause is widely drafted to catch as many types as possible of reasonable costs incurred by many different individuals and organisations. Therefore, if one includes references to specific organisations such as local authorities, one narrows the focus of the clause and casts some doubt on the scope of the clause. That is not in the interests of claimants other than local authorities. Therefore, I invite the House to reject the amendment.
The amendment also refers to cost incurred by local authorities acting on behalf of claimants. That seems to be another attempt to require British Coal to fund advice centres. Therefore, for the reasons that I gave in an earlier debate, I am not convinced that that would be justified.
Amendment No. 27 is drafted in extremely wide terms and seems to cover every type of expenditure, from a

record of the property's condition to major preventive works. I must stress that a clause 44 notice means that there is a risk but not a certainty of the building being affected by subsidence. Therefore, it would not be right or proper that all expenditure on all such building should automatically be reimbursable to the property owner or household.
Clause 36(5) as presently drafted provides that nothing in the clause is to be taken as prejudicing the powers of the Lands Tribunal in respect of any costs or expenses of the proceedings before that tribunal. The provision means that the Lands Tribunal can award costs without regard to clause 36, but, alternatively, clause 36 could still allow a claimant to attempt to recover from British Coal costs that the Lands Tribunal had not thought fit to award to him, which is wrong.
Therefore, amendment No. 21 does two things. First, it broadens the scope of subsection (5) so that not only does it apply to the Lands Tribunal but it brings arbitration procedures within its scope. That should commend itself to all hon. Members, who have been concerned to ensure that arbitration expenses are ranked in the same way as those incurred before the Lands Tribunal. Secondly, the amendment clarifies the relationship between the award of costs under a formal procedure and clause 36. Where any particular set of costs falls within the jurisdiction of a formal process, the outcome of that process is to be definitive as regards the recovery of those costs.
That rules out the possibility, which I mentioned earlier, of a claimant having a second go at recovering costs under clause 36 which were denied by the Lands Tribunal. The amendment does not prevent a successful claimant from recovering reasonable costs which an arbitrator would not have been able to award. For example, a claimant might have had to employ a structural engineer or surveyor. Those costs will be fully reimbursable.
Having given those explanations and expansions, I hope that the House will accept the amendments.

Mr. Meale: I merely wish some clarification on amendment No. 26. Has the Minister given way on the right of a local authority reasonably to reclaim money that it has spent in acting on behalf of a claimant? Secondly, as landlords—as the Minister knows—local authorities have thousands of houses, sometimes whole housing estates, which are submitted for claims to British Coal because of the damage throughout the estates. Would it be reasonable for the local authority to reclaim both amounts as the acting agent authority—first, as landlord and, secondly, acting on behalf of claimants resident in their district?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The only costs that will be reimbursable are those incurred by the local authority as landlord and owner of the buildings in question. For that purpose, the local authority is in exactly the same position as any other landlord or freeholder. As I explained, we did not think it right to place local authorities in a privileged position or draw specific attention in the clause to the rights of local authorities in that regard.

Mr. Meale: A short time ago, when debating another part of the Bill, the Minister suggested that there was nothing wrong with local authorities establishing themselves as agents representing the people of their areas. That would not prevent the setting up of advice centres;


indeed, it would help to get rid of the problem of coal mining subsidence agents. If local authorities do that work it is surely reasonable to consider reimbursing them for it.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If local authorities provide the necessary expert advice, reasonably incurred expenditure would be treated in the same way as if the advice or expertise were provided by any other professional organisation. The provision does not extend to general reimbursement for advice. If it did, we should slip back into the idea of reimbursing the expenses of advice centres, a course that the House has already rejected.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Business of the House

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill and the Ways and Means Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr.Nicholas Baker.]

Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Meale: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I remind the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) that this is Report stage, not Committee stage, so he should not make a series of interventions.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I found the brief read by the Minister an unconvincing argument against amendment No. 27. As the Bill stands, a householder would not be able to claim expenses unless he or she were certain that damage to the property would subsequently take place. The only definition of a successful claimant is someone whose property has sustained damage. A long time will pass before anyone will know whether a property has been damaged. In that time, under clause 44 (4), householders will be served with notices about the continuing threat of damage to their property. But it could be two or three years before any damage is seen, and only then can one be a successful claimant. In the meantime it is reasonable for such a householder to seek legal advice or advice from a surveyor. At present, he or she would not know whether those expenses would be reimbursed under the clause.
If a householder is continually served with notices under clause 44 (4) and as a result seeks advice, we suggest that any such reasonable expenses should be covered even if the property proves not to have been damaged. Will the Minister tell us why he considers that unreasonable? Why should a householder being served notices warning that his property may be damaged not be allowed reasonable expenditure for seeking advice even if he is not ultimately a successful claimant?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney knows, and indeed has said, that a successful claimant will be reimbursed reasonable costs such as those incurred in making a pre-survey of the condition of the property. Unsuccessful claimants, however, will not be reimbursed. The hon. Gentleman is

asking me automatically to underwrite all such expenditure which may be incurred by anyone served a clause 44 notice.

Mr. Rowlands: No, a clause 44 (4) notice.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The fact that someone may be served a notice is no guarantee that their property will be damaged. Notices can be withdrawn. Mining plans can change. Even if mining goes ahead, only between 30 per cent. and 70 per cent. of properties in the area will finally be damaged. If all such expenditure incurred in advance of damage were automatically to be reimbursed, we should be paying for a great deal of nugatory expenditure.

Mr. Rowlands: We are concerned specifically with subsection (4). A person will be served with a notice after 12 months, followed by a notice 12 months after that, and so on. If notices continue to drop into a householder's home, it is reasonable for him to take advice. If no damage is found to have been sustained, it is reasonable that the householder should be able to claim reasonable expenses.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is talking about repeated clause 44 notices, but my observations still apply. Damage to the property is still only a possibility. I accept that in some areas it will be a probability. There is, however, plenty of scope for the property to be undamaged and for any expenditure undertaken to be nugatory. The arrangements that we have put in place seek to strike a balance between the understandable desire of claimants to take precautions before mining occurs and the need to protect British Coal from unnecessary cost.
I understand that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfyl and Rhymney believes that we have tilted the balance slightly in the wrong direction. There matters were discussed in Committee and I must ask the House today to endorse the judgment that we reached.

Mr. Barron: We may wish to try to obtain satisfaction in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 19 in page 28, line 24, leave out 'and (4)' and insert 'to (5)'.

No. 20, in line 39, leave out 'in relation'.

No. 21, in page 28, line 42, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) Subsection (2) above does not apply to any costs or expenses incurred in or in connection with any proceedings before any tribunal, court or other person if an order for their payment has been or could have been made by that tribunal, court or other person.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 38

DISPUTES: GENERAL

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 29, line 18, after 'or', insert 'other'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Clause 41

DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES BY ARBITRATION

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 30, line 17, after 'person', insert 'independent of the Corporation'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 25.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We accept the amendment of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) that the arbitrator should be independent. It was always our intention that he should be. The Institute of Arbitrators takes suitable pride in its professional integrity and independence. To remove any doubt, I accept in full the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Barron: I thank the Minister. I have spent the past few weeks wondering how he would take away the words "independent of the corporation", he being somewhat doubtful of them in Committee.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The amendment underlines the independent nature of the arbitration that the Bill provides and which will be available when the scheme is approved. At what stage will there be access to the independent arbitrator? What will be the position of those who are currently undecided whether to go ahead under the present procedure, which is not the one approved by the Minister and which, as he mentioned in his opening remarks, involves the Institute of Arbitrators? There are those who will be undecided whether to go ahead with that procedure or to wait, as I would advise, for the amended procedure, which also includes placing the onus of proof on the coal board to show that the damage did not result from mining. There was considerable discussion on the matter in Committee where a great deal of valuable work was done. Can the Minister make it clear that nobody who is waiting for him to approve the scheme will find that they have passed a time limit merely by waiting until the scheme is fully in place before they pay their money and go ahead with arbitration?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that they need not wait, because the scheme has been running on a voluntary basis since the beginning of January this year. It was brought forward by British Coal after consultation with us; therefore, to all intents and purposes, the scheme is up and running. We shall be reviewing with British Coal the operation of the scheme later this year to see whether it is satisfactory and whether it can be extended in any way.
The Bill allows, if necessary, the Secretary of State to put into regulations the exact details. We intend to do that only if the scheme is unsatisfactory or if British Coal or its successors backtrack in any way from the scheme as outlined. However, I confirm that early indications are good and that British Coal has agreed to remove any doubt about people's rights to go to arbitration.
Some doubts have been expressed about the wording in the existing guidance leaflet and the notes attaching to the arbitration scheme. They will be altered and amended where necessary to make clear that people have the right to go to that arbitration scheme in appropriate cases.

Mr. Beith: I am grateful to the Minister. If someone were to take the Minister's advice and go ahead now using the existing scheme before the Bill is enacted, where would they stand in relation to the onus of proof?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: They would not be disadvantaged in any way. British Coal will carry over existing cases

which are presently in train and treat them as though the new Bill were an Act of Parliament so that those claimants will not see the join.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Can my hon. Friend confirm that, when he says that people will have the right to arbitration, it will be a unilateral right under the existing scheme proposed by British Coal, and that British Coal will not have to give approval for that person to go to arbitration? That is an important point which we discussed in Committee.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I was able to give that assurance in Committee and I am happy to repeat it. If some case, due to its complexity or technical nature, is more appropriately dealt with by the Lands Tribunal that will be a decision for the arbitrator and not for British coal.

Mr. Meale: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is it an intervention or a speech?

Mr. Meale: A short speech.

Mr. Speaker: This is a Report stage. Hon. Member should make their speeches and then the Minister should wind up and respond to them. It is not really a question and answer debate as is appropriate in Committee.

Mr. Meale: I am grateful to the Minister for the various assurances he gave in Committee. I am also grateful to him for repeating and expanding on a few of them in his reply to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Will he confirm in the context of the present debate the guarantee that he gave in Committee concerning cases that had been disqualified under the old six-year rule? Under the new arbitration procedure, will the people involved be able to have their cases reviewed?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I can confirm that some difficult disputes have not been settled to the satisfaction of the claimants. It is appropriate that these should be dealt with under the new arbitration scheme, and British Coal has indicated that if they are brought forward, they may be settled in that way.

Mr. Haynes: Suppose an individual—it could be a person from any constituency—has a problem of this sort, and he goes through the procedure that the Minister is introducing. What will happen at the end of the period of six years? Is the Minister saying that the new rule is in operation now? Under the new system, the burden of proof will be on the corporation, whereas, previously, it was on the individual. Will the corporation now have a duty to prove beyond doubt that damage was not done by the mining industry? Has the new six-year rule now come into operation?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Bill clears up the present ambiguity—the conflict between the two existing Acts. It lays down very clearly how the six-year rule will operate. If there are disputes or difficulties about interpretation, or about matters of fact, they can be referred to arbitration. The solution will not be at the unilateral say-so of the British Coal corporation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42

TIME LIMITS FOR CERTAIN DISPUTES

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 31, line 2, after 'or', insert 'other'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory]

Clause 43

INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 31, line 24, after 'person', insert 'independent of the Corporation'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory]

Clause 44

NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS ETC

Amendments made: No. 38, in page 33, leave out lines 6 to 8 and insert—
'(c) any information which is to accompany such notices.'.

No. 39, in page 33, line 15, leave out
'owners or occupiers of the land'
and insert
'person to whom the notice is to be given'.

No. 40, in page 33, line 17, leave out first 'any'.

No. 41, in page 33, line 20, leave out 'persons' and insert
'any person who is the owner or occupier of any part of the land or is'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 7

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 54, line 12, at end insert—

'Notices

6A. Where any underground coal-mining operations proposed to be carried on after the commencement date can be regarded as a continuation of operations carried on before that date, nothing in section 44(1) (notices to property owners etc.) or section 45(1) of this Act (notices to local authorities) shall require the Corporation to give any notice with respect to those operations before the end of the period of one month beginning with that date.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have reached the end of the Bill's proceedings in this House, and I want to thank the members of the Standing Committee that examined it at an earlier stage. I thank them in particular for the constructive and co-operative way in which they examined the issues. The Bill started as a very considerable step forward, and some of the decisions of the Standing Committee have improved it. In its original form, it was a consolidating measure, bringing together two Acts of Parliament, and making a number of improvements. It also formalised claimants' rights to use their own contractors in a way that has been repeated this evening; allowed the reimbursement of all the reasonable costs incurred by claimants in pursuing a successful claim; clarified the very difficult issue of time limits in a way that is now clear and unambiguous; provided for households to be individually notified about British Coal's mining plans; provided a statutory basis for the informal resolution of disputes through an arbitration scheme; and placed British Coal's code of practice on a statutory basis. The Bill also imposes a duty on British Coal to safeguard property that is vacated while undergoing repair.
In Committee and again this evening, the Bill has been further improved. On the question of stop notices, an interim standard of repair has been laid down, and a maximum duration for stop notices has been declared. On the difficult issue of blight, a new clause requires British Coal to purchase property blighted by subsidence damage or its imminent likelihood where hardship would otherwise be experienced. As to the use of an own-contractor in undertaking repairs, there is clarification of, and an emphasis on, a claimant's right to use his own contractor, except in specified circumstances.
The independence of the arbitrator has been affirmed, and the Bill now includes provision for small businesses to recover consequential losses.
On Second Reading, I said that it was my intention to make a good Bill better. I believe that I have done that, with the assistance of the Committee and of the House.

Mr. Barron: On Second Reading, although we welcomed this well-overdue Bill, we identified serious weaknesses and omissions that we hoped to rectify during the legislation's progress through the House. In Committee, the Minister accepted many of the arguments that we put, and tonight the Government presented a substantial number of amendments that cover the issues raised by my hon. Friends in Committee.
We received an assurance from the Minister that British Coal will not be able to block a claimant's right to refer his case to arbitration. By removing that veto, the likelihood of referrals to the Lands Tribunal has been lessened. In view of the recent history of the Lands Tribunal in respect of subsidence claims, thousands of people will be breathing a sigh of relief that they will not have to travel that route in future.
We welcome that advance, together with the amendment relating to the independence of the arbitrator. Taken together, those changes go a long way to meeting our concerns about the scheme. The Bill has also been greatly improved by the clause dealing with blight and the amendment on consequential loss. Many small agricultural businesses that suffer consequential losses, in terms of future yield, will be pleased with that improvement and we hope to see that new provision operating to their advantage in the near future.
The rights of claimants to use their own contractors in carrying out repairs, and the introduction of criteria for stop notices and their revocation, have been strengthened. The latter issue was raised forcefully on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). His advocacy on behalf of his constituents has been most effective, not only in relation to the Bill, but during all his years as a Member of Parliament.
People in all areas affected by subsidence will welcome the Bill. It was thanks to the pressure consistently exerted by Labour, both locally and nationally, that the Bill saw the light of day. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) waves his hand at me. I have before me a letter that he wrote to the then Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) on 2 May 1989, in which he referred to the absence of any action in respect of subsidence damage, and said how awful it was that people had to pursue their claims through the Lands Tribunal, and risked substantial costs being awarded against them. He added:


To make matters worse, we have now had the Opposition spokesman for mining, Mr. Kevin Barron, in the Sherwood and Mansfield constituencies, claiming that they will put matters to rights when returned to power".
That is absolutely right. They may be jumping in on our legislative programme today.
The hon. Member for Sherwood smiles. He will smile, because I also have here a letter from one of his hon. Friends who spoke on Second Reading. Unfortunately, he was not with us today. He also wrote to the right hon. Member for Hertsmere on 27 April 1989—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who was it?"] I think that it was the hon. member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock). He wrote to the then Secretary of State for Energy, saying that he was enclosing
a copy of an article which appeared last week in the Mansfield local newspaper".
At the end of the letter he said:
I can only say that I fully endorse what Kevin Barron says and hope that you will treat the issue more seriously.
I am pleased that the issue has been treated more seriously, after the years that Labour has been arguing here and elsewhere that the matter should be put to rights.
The Bill leaves the House as a superior Bill to the one first introduced and that is substantially due to the improvements that we promoted in Committee. I hope that it will not be too long before the people whose lives have been so affected by coal mining subsidence will see the benefits of this legislation when it has left the other place.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Having campaigned with other hon. Members for the need for new legislation to deal with the effects of subsidence due to coal mining, I believe that the Third Reading of such a Bill closes a chapter and heralds a new beginning for communities living in coal field areas.
The present methods adopted by British Coal as a result of the 1957 and 1975 legislation will soon pass into the history books. Also it is worth recording there for posterity my thanks, and that of my constituents, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for coal for bringing the Bill before Parliament and seeing it through its Committee stage, and shortly on to the statute book. Further appreciation should go to COALS and the united industry working party for their extensive work in the past three years.
The new legislation will end the long delays, endless disputes and sheer misery that claimants endured under the present procedures. They will no longer be at the mercy of British Coal. Indeed, for the first time claimants will be in the game with the same number of players as British Coal, which previously acted as referee and moved the goal posts when it was opportune to do so.
Once enacted, the legislation will be comprehensive, righting the injustices of the past. My enthusiasm for the new measure is shared by my constituents. Our acclaim for the Bill is because, from the beginning to the end, it encompasses every aspect of the consequences of mining. To start with, anyone whose property may be affected by mining must be informed by British Coal in advance of underground workings. Claimants will be clear that they have six years to initiate a claim after the appearance of damage, not after the ceasing of mine workings. Claimants

will be able to agree the use of their own contractors. Costs incurred in pursuing a dispute will be reimbursed if the claim is successful. The Government agree that consequential loss should be compensated. British Coal must purchase, or compensate for, property affected by blight. Last, but not least—and most important—is the right of claimants to unfettered arbitration.
The end result of the Bill will be a fair settlement of claims at nil or minimal cost to successful claimants. It will ensure fair practice and fair play. This legislation goes that extra yard, providing fairness, respectability, honesty and understanding for all involved with coal mining subsidence, while recognising the major role of the coal industry in our national and local economies.

Mr. Beith: It is a pity that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) felt it necessary to compliment himself so extensively because, judging with the much greater impartiality of someone who did not serve in Committee, I was going to say that it was a good Bill to start with and was significantly improved by the efforts of Opposition Members in Committee, of whom I was not one.
The effort that a number of hon. Members put into the Bill was well justified and shows on the face of the Bill. Many of our constituents will be in a better position to raise difficult issues that are the source of great anxiety to them, now that a better procedure is in place, and now that there is a better basis for proof, and what I hope will prove to be a proper arbitration system, which, if it does not emerge via negotiation, can be brought into being through the provisions of the Bill.
I am glad that the Bill was introduced. In principle, it was a good Bill from the start and it has been significantly improved by the efforts of those hon. Members who have devoted a considerable amount of time to it.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: As you know, Mr. Speaker, better than most, the public perception of the House is that it engages in a succession of gladiatorial contests, with printable insults hurled throughout our debates. We have dispelled part of that public perception this evening.
Although a great number of hon. Members are not here, all those who are here have participated in the campaign over many years to right the injustice caused to our constituents by coal mining subsidence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) suggested, tonight marks almost the end of the battle—but not quite.
This is an excellent Bill which represents the culmination of years of debate, the distilled wisdom of the Waddilove committee and that of a number of hon. Members in all parts of the House. It was a little churlish of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) to respond as he did. I pay tribute to his hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), who I know has campaigned vigorously, but especially I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, who throughout has adopted a thoroughly principled stance, as befits a Member of Parliament for his constituency.
The Bill will provide a clearer and fairer framework for the hopefully speedier settlement of an injustice that causes enormous distress and heartache. My hon. Friend the


Minister and his predecessors, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), whose Parliamentary Private Secretary I was, worked hard to arrive at a solution that will deal with the injustice without imposing intolerable burdens on the coal industry, which continues to serve the nation in a relentlessly more efficient manner. The fact that my hon. Friend the Minister has been prepared to listen to amendments, not just from the Opposition but from his hon. Friends, has been warmly welcomed.
In two key areas—arbitration and blight—the Government have decided to rely on reserve powers. It is right that the Bill should contain what earlier I called the rule of the threat of law. I hope that British Coal will now demonstrate a commitment to making its voluntary codes of practice on arbitration and blight work. The corporation is still somewhat wobbly and will certainly have to change its stance if the public are to be sufficiently reassured.
In my constituency last October I finally secured British Coal's agreement to accept liability for some properties with a history of subsidence, but that acceptance needs to be followed up by speedy and sympathetic action. As employment in the industry continues to contract, so British Coal will increasingly require to win the good will of the areas in which it wishes to work. If it fails to implement the voluntary agreements, in the spirit and to the letter, there will be pressure to activate the statutory regulations that we have provided for in the Bill. I trust that that will be unnecessary, but the ball is firmly in British Coal's court.

Mr. Lofthouse: I, too, very much welcome the Bill. It was a good Bill when it was introduced and it has been improved in Committee. However, there is still a major fault that could easily be rectified, and I hope that the Minister will take it on board. I greatly welcome clause 32(3), which, in line 46, provides that
the Corporation may make such proposals as to the materials for and the method of construction of the property as appear to them to be desirable for minimising damage in the event of subsidence.
I have always believed that if British Coal, the local authorities and the private developers had jointly considered providing rafts under properties where British Coal knew that it was going to mine, they would have saved themselves millions of pounds. Other organisations would also have been saved millions of pounds.
Another worrying aspect is that, if a local mine is threatened with major expenditure due to subsidence, that mine's survival will also be endangered. We should consider prevention rather than compensation. Rather than refer merely to materials for construction, we should enable the Bill to confer on British Coal the right to agree with the builders or the local authorities that, if they expect subsidence, they will meet the costs of a raft. That would cost only £2,000 or £3,000 a dwelling but would save a great deal should subsidence occur. If the effect can be minimised when properties are erected, we should write that provision into the Bill.

Mr. Hayward: The Bill is important not only to areas where mining still occurs but to areas such as those that the Minister and I represent, where coal mining ceased many years ago but which still suffer the problems of coal-mining subsidence.
The Bill provides clarity for people who never expected to suffer from the problem of subsidence because coal mining had stopped so many years ago. It does not provide the certainty that they will gain from a claim, but it provides clarity in the form of the procedures by which to pursue a claim for subsidence and what is defined as subsidence. It provides clarity and a shift in the burden of proof. The burden is now on the Coal Board rather than on the applicant, which is especially important.
Finally, because of an amendment moved by Conservative members of the Committee, the Bill now provides the right for all people to pursue arbitration without British Coal objecting. It is a paramount right for all individuals to be able to pursue a claim to the end, even if they are opposed by British Coal.
For those reasons, I believe that we have a Bill of which we can all be proud, and I hope that it will move to another place.

Mr. Meale: To conclude this phase of the legislation, I should like to thank a number of hon. Members from all parties who have been involved in trying to introduce new legislation to sort out the horrific mess. I also pay tribute to the Minister and to his predecessor who started the whole process, ably and gallantly pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who has done a magnificent job at every stage in Committee and in the House.
We must also remember others who have battled and given advice, such as ex-Members of Parliament, some of whom until recently have actively given advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and me. Unfortunately, one—Lord Taylor of Mansfield—is no longer around, but we must pay tribute to him because he was never slow in coming forward to give advice to my hon. Friend, to me and to others.
We should also pay tribute to the Consortium of Authorities Liaising on Subsidence—COALS—to the representative organisations of local authorities, to their officials and elected members from the all the authorities involved who have done a magnificent job in bringing the issue to the fore and in making progress towards a change on the statute book. I also pay tribute to organisations such as the united industries working party—which has been mentioned—which provided help.
However, I must say to the Minister—as he would expect me to—that in such cases one sometimes experiences a little cloud of disappointment. I am disappointed especially about the issue of information, which I believe should be made available to everyone if real justice is to be achieved. I should have liked advice centres and a register of damage to properties included in the Bill. I hope that the other place will agree on that.
The Bill has been a magnificent effort by everyone involved and especially those who are suffering damage to their homes throughout the coalfield areas. Their pressure,


persistence and search for justice will, I hope and believe, one day lead to a subsidence back to a better time for them.

Mr. Frank Haynes: A fair amount of pressure has been lifted from——

Mr. Hayward: Raising the flag.

Mr. Haynes: No, I am not raising the flag.
A fair amount of pressure concerned with mining subsidence has been lifted from the shoulders of hon. Members. The Bill is a step in the right direction. I want to pay the Minister a compliment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Take it steady."] In answer to my hon. Friends, I must say that the Minister has had a real education about mining. He has made it his business to get about the mining areas——

Mr. Barron: Down the pits.

Mr. Haynes: Yes. Who would have thought that the Minister would wear a mining helmet, knee pads and pit boots, and go into the pithead bath afterwards? Some of us did it for many years. We have real experience. We have also experienced the fact that the Minister has got to know about the industry and its problems. I hope that he will continue in that way until the next election when we shall be sitting on the Government Benches. We shall have a different Minister with responsibility for mining, but at the moment I am complimenting the present Minister for his work, especially on the Bill. He has listened to what we said in Committee and he has proved beyond all doubt that many of our points that were rejected in Committee are now accepted because they have been included today.
However, I am a little disappointed about the advice centres. I said a little earlier that it may happen that in the other place ——

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Where you are going.

Mr. Haynes: Shut up. The advice centres may be accepted in the other place.
I want to refer to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). I remember his predecessor, Dennis Concannon, all those years back when pressure was being put on the Government to do something about the problem. Before him was our noble Friend Lord Taylor, who passed on last week. I have been to the other place and listened to some of his contributions on the mining industry, especially about mining subsidence, and about how people suffered in his day. He left this place in 1966 to go down yonder. The problem has been going on for a long while. At long last, something has happened. [HON. MEMBERS: "A Tory Government."] We have a Bill. We have been working together in the interests of our constituents. It is all right for hon. Members to bawl

from a sedentary position, trying to make a stupid political point. We have worked together in Committee to change the Bill and we have been successful.
I said earlier that the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) was denied an opportunity today. In Committee, he agreed with many of our points. The Government kept him out of the Chamber today because he was going to agree with us on the advice centres. I am convinced that when the Bill comes back from the other place, it will contain a clause on advice centres. I want to know from the Minister what he intends to do about it. I hope that he will leave it there. If he does not, after the next election, we shall put it in. We shall put some other things in, too. Our constituents have suffered long enough.
I come now to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). He is an ex-miner, like one or two of us. He is not a farmer. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) has got his way about his potato field. If it sinks in the middle he will get compensation. This Government have poured money in the farmers' pockets and here we go again. We are damned well agreeing with it again.
If a farmer suffers because of mining subsidence, he is entitled to compensation or to have things put right. There is no doubt about that. That is fair. The Bill has become fair but it needs to be a bit fairer. I come back again to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley. He has a wonderful football team in his mining constituency. We play them twice a season. We kick them all over the pitch. The pitch goes up and down all over the place. It is a terrible pitch. I do not know whether the club has claimed for mining subsidence damage, but it ought to—it ought to make a claim and go to arbitration now that the Government are allowing people to do that.
There is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley has used his mining experience at the Dispatch Box, but he has also had some good advice. He knows what I am talking about. The Minister has had all his advice free. My hon. Friend has had to pay for his, but he has had first-class advice. That is why he has been able to stand at the Dispatch Box on Report and Third Reading and to do a first-class job in Committee.
We have all done our bit in this Bill, including hon. Members who served on the Committee such as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I remember some of the speeches that he made. The Tory Members did not like them at all, but they were good speeches. I am looking at my watch, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we won many of the arguments and we shall go on to win more. The important thing is that to achieve what we have in this Bill, never mind that the Tories are in control here at Westminster. We have worked together and made the Bill the way it is—and given the opportunity, we shall change it again.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required for making grants to persons entitled to premiums under the Community suckler cow scheme; and
(b) any increase in the sums payable out of such money into the Forestry Fund which is attributable to any provision of that Act for the making of grants to the verderers of the New Forest.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I shall be brief, because I do not intend to prolong the debate. I should simply like the Minister to confirm a few minor points. Paragraph (a) of the motion refers to premiums under the Community suckler cow scheme. The Minister will confirm that that part of the Bill will come into operation immediately once the Bill is enacted. It provides a legal basis and regularises the position on such payments, which have existed since 1980.
Paragraph (b) refers to grants to the verderers. Such payments have existed since 1973 and are covered in clause 4 of the Bill, which will come into immediate operation once the measure has completed its parliamentary passage, as will clause 3. Will the Minister confirm that that sum has not exceeded £10,000 per annum since 1973? Can he predict how that will continue?
My last point is on the main part of the Bill and the restructuring and reorganisation of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. The question of the £10 million——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. That goes beyond the scope of the motion before the House.

Mr. Pike: This relates to the financial implications.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The motion relates to suckler cows and New Forest verderers.

Mr. Pike: I shall leave the matter there. We can cover it in Committee on Thursday.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I wish to make one small point about the suckler cow premium scheme. Will my hon. Friend the Minister urge his counterparts in the European Community to concentrate the support for the beef industry on the suckler cow scheme? In that way we shall serve the best interests of the beef industry and encourage that part of it which produces the quality beef for which this country has long had a good reputation. The special beef premium scheme does not necessarily go towards the production of beef that is entirely satisfactory to the housewife and at the end of the day the beef industry must satisfy her.
We can produce absolutely top quality beef——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It may be my mistake, but I do not know what suckler cows have to do with beef production. Am I mistaken?

Mr. Gill: With all due respect, beef does come from the suckler cow herds.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear in mind the fact that when we expend these moneys on suckler cows we are doing a worthwhile job for the British beef industry because it encourages the production of quality beef which can be used substantially to improve the market for the industry's product. I make the plea that future support through a premium is concentrated on that part of the industry rather than on other parts.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): Perhaps I can be helpful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the whole House by saying that although some wonderful scientific and implant techniques are available these days, it is usually handy to have a cow first before producing beef cattle or calves.
I acknowledge what my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said about the importance of the suckler cow premium system. In answer to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), we would expect the provisions on both the suckler cow scheme and the New Forest verderers' grants to come into operation as soon as the Bill is passed. I recollect that in no single year has more than £10,000 been granted.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required for making grants to persons entitled to premiums under the Community suckler cow scheme; and
(b) any increase in the sums payable out of such money into the Forestry Fund which is attributable to any provision of that Act for the making of grants to the verderers of the New Forest.

Orders of the Day — Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill [Ways and Means]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Agriculture and Forestry (Financial Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees in respect of the supervision of grading of livestock carcases pursuant to any Community obligation and the payment of such fees into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Minister confirm that this makes preparation for payments that will commence from 1 January 1992?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): I am happy to confirm that.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question put forwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).


That the draft Dangerous Vessels (Northern Ireland) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Question agreed to.

EDUCATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101( 5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).
That the draft Education Reform Act 1988 (Application of Section 122 to Institutions in Wales) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 4th March, be approved.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

CUSTOMS CONTROLS ON BAGGAGE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8353/90 on abolition of controls and formalities on cabin and checked baggage on intra-Community flights and sea crossings; supports the Government's intention to ensure that Member States retain the right to carry out checks at the internal border to protect society against illegal importations of drugs and other prohibited goods, to control immigration and to counteract terrorism and other serious crime; and notes with concern the practical and infrastructural problems for airports that could be caused by the draft proposals.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Question agreed to.

Eye Test Charges

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Sadly, nothing illustrates the Government's real intention towards the national health service more than the disastrous decision in 1988 to abolish free eye tests. The Government simply ignored the warnings that abolition would have a serious effect on the health of large numbers of our nation. The then Secretary of State for Health refused to believe Labour Members when we told him that if he stopped paying for free eye tests, opticians would have to start charging.
Last week, in the debate on the national health service, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) reminded the House that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not have been more wrong. In November 1988, the right hon. and learned Gentleman assured the House:
the charge for the eye test will steadily disappear … that is my strong personal opinion."—[Official Report, 1 November 1988; Vol 139, c. 927.]
He has certainly been proved wrong, because today every optician charges between £10 and £17 for an eye test. As a result of that charge, hundreds of thousands of people face an increased risk of going blind or developing other serious diseases as they are deterred from visiting the optician by the cost of the eye test.
It was not just the Labour party who warned the Government about the potential serious situation that has now developed. The main professional body also advised against abolishing the free test and stressed its worthiness. A survey conducted by the British College of Optometrists in 1986 showed that of the 2,194 referrals made as a result of the eye test, older people—who formed a large group of those questioned—were particularly at risk from cataracts, macula degeneration, glaucoma, diabetes and other serious medical conditions. The college concluded that such people would be at risk if the free test were abolished as the charge would deter them from seeking such a test. Despite the survey and other early warnings, the Government refused to exempt pensioners from the charges. Since 1986, various surveys have been conducted which confirm the Labour party's fears that there would be widespread resistance to charges, particularly from the elderly.
In June 1990, the Consumers Association conducted a survey on eye testing and its findings were published in Which? The survey covered 1,094 adults who represented the public. It discovered that two in five people would go for an eye test less often once the charges were introduced, that two in five of those exempt from those charges thought that they had to pay and that nearly half those over 40 who were exempt from the charges also thought that they had to pay. The latter evidence was particularly worrying, given the increased incidence of eye disease in that age group.
The Consumers Association findings took into account the 7 per cent. increase in the number of eye tests as people rushed to beat the charges. However, even comparing the number of eye tests conducted in the year to April 1989 with those conducted in the year to April 1988, it is clear


that tests were down by about one fifth—more than 2·5 million in England and Wales—which represented a great reduction.
The survey concluded that, given that about one eye test in 20 results is a referral for medical examinations for eye disease or other medical conditions, that drop in examinations may have led to 125,000 fewer referrals with consequent repercussions for the early detection of diseases and possible increased long-term burden on the national health service. Therefore, the rather mean and irresponsible decision to charge for eye testing has not just caused untold human misery and pain—it has also been an economic mistake. Someone with an advanced disease is likely to cost the NHS far more than someone whose disease is diagnosed early.
Recently, there has been more evidence that the decision was bad. On 12 April, the Association of Optometrists published the findings of a major MORI survey on eye testing, which showed that the number of eye examinations had plummeted by one fifth since 1988. The survey, in which the Economists Advisory Group sampled 252 practices of members of the association, said:
In comparing survey data on each quarter in 1988, 1989 and 1990, the … study estimates that eye examinations during 1990 were 20·9 per cent. fewer, on a national basis, than during 1988.
It stated that, in particular, there were an estimated 3·6 million eye examinations in the first quarter of 1989, just before the Government abolished universal free eye examinations. It said that, in the second quarter of that year—after charges were introduced—the number of estimated eye examinations shrank to 2·4 million, down nearly 32 per cent. Subsequently during 1990, estimated eye examinations have averaged 2·5 million a quarter, almost 21 per cent. down on the 1988 quarterly average of 3·2 million. Those are alarming figures.
A second survey, conducted at the same time and by the same group arid commissioned by the Association of Optometrists, showed that a majority of the public believed that eye examinations should be free to all, It is commendable that the public take such a good social attitude. The survey updated trend information spanning seven years and was carried out to establish public attitudes to eye examinations. It was conducted among more than 2,000 people aged 15-plus throughout Britain, and it concluded:
The Government's decision, in April 1989, to abolish universal free eye examinations is not popular amongst the public. Nearly three-fifths (57 per cent.) of those interviewed said 'everyone should be able to have a free eye examination'. A quarter (26 per cent.) said free examinations should be available only to those groups currently eligible, namely children under 16, students aged 19 in full time education, those on income support or family credit"—
many of whom are currently entitled to free eye tests—
those registered blind or partially sighted, those with glaucoma, those aged over 40 who have a close relative suffering from glaucoma, and those suffering from diabetes.
As might be expected, the public were socially aware and were concerned about the abolition of the free tests.
The British College of Optometrists, which carried out the work, said that in the two years since fees were imposed about 4 million fewer people had had their eyes tested. That represents a drop of about 8 per cent. per year. Any health Minister worth his salt would take those alarming figures seriously. Some 400,000 of those would have been referred for further medical attention and half of those referred would have been suffering from a major eye

disease such as cataract or glaucoma. Thousands more would have shown early warning signs of illnesses such hypertension, heart disease, diabetes and, in extreme cases, brain tumours.
When I looked to my constituency for a local angle, I worked out that, based on those figures, 10,000 of my constituents in Halifax would have gone without tests, and perhaps 1,000 of them would have missed important medical detection. That statistic is unforgivable, alarming and unnecessary in view of the amount of money that the Government have saved.
Today, I received a letter from Age Concern, which argues forcefully for the annual free test to be reinstated for elderly people. It is important to hear the opinions of the various groups concerned with vulnerable sections of society. Age Concern states in the letter:
Older people may need encouragement to visit the optician as they tend to 'make do' with spectacles which are ill-fitting or which no longer correct their vision effectively. Eye test fees impose an extra barrier to older people who need to seek help.
There are many myths about who can and cannot receive free tests. Age Concern makes the important point:
The Government has repeatedly argued that it aims to target help on people most in need, and that people on income support, and some priority groups, continue to receive free eye tests. Although older people whose incomes are just above income support levels can receive help, they have to put in a claim. Many older people are reluctant to fill in what are often long and complicated forms, and around one fifth of older people do not claim benefits to which they are entitled.
We know that that is often the case with elderly people.
The letter continues:
The recent increase in the state pension means that married couples under the age of 75 now receive 10p over the income support limit and are therefore no longer automatically eligible for free eye tests.
Age Concern is obviously concerned that that problem should be solved.
Local opticians in my constituency, and those of other Members—I am sure that the Minister has been lobbied over this—have called for free eye tests for all over 65. That confirms the point that I have made, and that has been made so forcefully by others, that people in that age group tend to have the most problems with their eyes. It is important to stress that that age group is not automatically excluded. As Age Concern stated, because of the recent increases in state pension, many of them will not be.
The Royal National Institute for the Blind makes a similar plea in a letter that it sent me when it knew that I had this Adjournment debate, and which I received today. It states that all pensioners should be exempt and that research overwhelmingly shows that that group of people are those most vulnerable to eye disease. It quotes Professor John Marshall of the Institute of Opthalmology, who estimates that about 78 per cent. of the 78 to 85 age group have major eye disease. That is an important point.
The Royal National Institute for the Blind also states—this may pre-empt something that the Minister may say in his defence—that it commissioned a survey last year, which I believe the Government have used to support their claims that the issue was not important. The survey showed that people had been deterred from eye tests, but it also showed that a high number of people claimed to have had eye tests. It stated that the figure was similar to that in the Government's survey. We know that the


Government conducted a survey. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston challenged it in a debate after the eye test charges were introduced.
The institute states:
The Government have seized this information to support their argument. We believe the figure is a substantial overestimate. The Government itself accepted that its survey had produced some degree of overestimate. It is also worth comparing what the Government survey claimed to have happened on NHS tests with what actually happened.
2·05 million adults claimed to have had an NHS test in the first quarter of 1990, but the records show the Family Practitioner Committees only paid for 0·624 million tests. Although some of this discrepancy might be explained by confusion as to the difference between NHS and private tests, it casts doubt on the credibility of the Government's survey.
I believe that, too, and I hope that the Minister will seriously consider that forcefully made point.
In the light of the overwhelming evidence from all sources, it is time for the Government to admit that they made a serious mistake in abolishing free eye tests. Abolition is leading to serious diseases going undetected. The Government must accept that thousands are at risk because of the cost deterrent. They are not being given medical care when they need it, and that cannot be in their interests. That makes a cruel nonsense of the purpose of the NHS, and it represents a false economy that can only lead to human misery.
Some of these diseases are very painful, and human beings are suffering needlessly. Some may even suffer early death as a result of their condition not being detected early enough. I urge the Government immediately to restore the free eye tests. It they do not, we can only assume that the impression that we were given when the Government changed their Prime Minister—that we were to have a more caring Government—was only a mirage, and that they are following the tradition of the last Prime Minister and her Administration, in whose hands we could not trust the NHS.
I promise the Minister and anyone who may take note of this debate that we shall keep pressing for free eye tests, which any socially aware and civilised society should provide for its citizens. If the Government do not restore them, on the election of a Labour Government we shall soon restore them. They are vital diagnostic tests which provide an early warning system for serious diseases. I urge the Government not to wait for the next Labour Government and to show that they really do care.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I agree with the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that this is an important subject, and the House therefore has reason to be grateful to her for initiating this Adjournment debate, which allows us once again to test the arguments for the stance that the Opposition have adopted on the issue and the arguments that the Government deploy in defence of their position.
I wish to restate the policy that the Government have pursued and to set it in context. There is no disagreement between the Government and the hon. Member for Halifax, or between the Government and the optometry profession, about the importance of eye tests. The Government remain fully committed, as they have been throughout, to quality eye care and to ensuring that those

who go to opticians receive a high-quality professional service. That is why, in July 1989, the Government tabled regulations that set out factors that should be taken into account, by law, when a patient has an eye test. The law requires that a patient have a refraction test to measure the degree of correction required for good eyesight, and that patients be given a full examination of their eyes. That requirement was put on the statute book by the Government because we are committed to the principle that a regular eye test is an important part of health care.
The hon. Lady is concerned principally not with high-quality eye care but with who pays in most instances for such tests. Experience proves that on average the cost of a test is £12 or £13, and the Government believe that, for the great majority, it is entirely reasonable that the individual citizen should pay that sum for himself or herself. I suggest that it is inconsistent to argue, as many do, that taxpayers, and citizens in general, would be prepared to pay another 1p in the rate of income tax if the proceeds were directed entirely to health care. If the rate of income tax were to be increased by 1p, something in excess of £50 a year would be the yield from a man on average earnings. Yet that same person is not prepared to pay £12 every two years for an eye test.
The Government accept that people are prepared to pay an additional charge to ensure high-quality health care. For those who are in a position to do so, the eye test is a perfect example of an opportunity for people to make a contribution to their health care, recognising as the Government do the importance of a fully qualified person conducting an eye test. That does not detract from the Government's commitment to ensure that there are free eye tests available to those who can establish a need, either on the ground that they are adults with low incomes, or are children or students aged under 19 years, or to those who on health grounds attach an especial importance to regular eye tests. That is why free tests continue to be provided for the blind and partially sighted, for those who suffer from diabetes and for those and their families with a history of glaucoma.
Those who benefit from free eye tests on the ground of low income and those who so benefit on health grounds constitute 40 per cent. of the population. I accept that by and large the public would like to have the opportunity to contribute more to expanding the resources that are available for health care, and the eye test system provides exactly that. It seems entirely consistent with the Government's commitment to improve the quality of health care that is available and to ensure that the maximum value is squeezed out of the budget that is available to the national health service.
It is sometimes suggested that the free facilities amount in some sense to a concession that has been drawn from the Government under protest, but our record gives the lie to that. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health devoted considerable effort in the early spring to promoting the importance of eye tests and the availability of free tests to those who will benefit from them. It is not a matter of 40 per cent. having an entitlement and the Government taking no further steps. We have undertaken a promotion campaign to ensure that those who are entitled to a free test have that fact brought to their attention.
The hon. Lady has said that an incoming Labour Government would restore the universal availability of free eye tests. That commitment, blithely given late on Monday night in the House, would cost such a


Government more than £100 million a year. The question that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends must answer is whether an extra £100 million a year available for improving and expanding the resources of the national health service would be best used in the way she described or whether it would be better used to improve the quality and availability of health care elsewhere in the national health service. I find it hard to believe that the highest priority for a marginal £100 million in the national health service is the restoration of free eye tests.
The only evidence that the hon. Lady used to substantiate her case this evening—her speech was entirely consistent with speeches made by Opposition Members ever since the change was made—was a series of surveys on which I shall comment briefly. The hon. Lady suggested that I should not get involved in an argument about which survey we embrace, and she sought to argue that there was some doubt about the credibility of one of the surveys that one of my right hon. Friends relied on in the past. I am content with that. I shall take the surveys published on 12 April by the Association of Optometrists on which the hon. Lady placed the greatest weight.
There were two surveys. The first was carried out by MORI which, not surprisingly, concluded that given the choice between paying for eye tests and getting them free, the British people would prefer to have them free. The hon. Lady considered that to be socially aware. I disagree. If someone offered me the choice between having something free and paying for it, I would choose to have it free. That is simply to ignore the reality of the choice and the importance of priorities in the use of resources within the national health service.
The other survey published on 12 April by the Association of Optometrists was undertaken by the Economists Advisory Group which sought to demonstrate that the take-up of eye tests has been substantially cut since charges were introduced in April 1989. I believe that that survey is subject to severe shortcomings. First, only 56 per cent. of the optometrists to whom it was directed responded to the survey. That leaves me wondering what evidence the other 44 per cent. would have produced. Secondly, the statistics that were quoted compared the period immediately after charges were introduced for the first time with the period immediately before the change—the last period during which they were free. It is not surprising that there was a boom in demand for eye tests just before the charges were brought in, and that there was a slump just after they were introduced.
If the hon. Lady reads the press release, she will find one piece of evidence that was not highlighted in the text. In the last two quarters measured by that survey, there was a sharp increase in the take-up of eye tests. In the third quarter of 1990, eye tests were up by 9 per cent. on the equivalent period in the previous year and in the fourth quarter of 1990, take-up was up by 16 per cent. over the same period in the previous year.
I do not accept that the evidence is conclusive that the change in funding has led to a long-term decline in the demand for eye tests. I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of eye tests and we shall certainly continue to stress that, but I do not accept that her conclusions can be based firmly on the statistical information at her disposal.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned at twenty-three minutes past Eleven o'clock.